I’ve tried submitting Divvy bike rental stations with no luck, apparently they do not meet wayfarer criteria, which I disagree with.
They are permanent structures, the ones near me have been there for 5+ years.
They are stations linked to specific intersections as displayed on the machine. You can’t just physically move them.
They encourage healthy activity and exploration of the community.
I was hoping to get any sort of clarification on this topic as other stations were previously approved around my city.
Other commentators have suggested using the city map you’d think would be displayed on the machine as the POI but unfortunately advertising is a thing and there are no maps.
For things that are hard to get approved that you think meet the criteria it is always worth making a number of tries. Currently I think there are four paths to approval: ML (Machine Learning), Community approval, Community approval with an upgrade and an appeal to Niantic.
If there are a number of similar Wayspots in the system you might convince the ML to accept it by making your nomination as similar as possible to the existing ones (similar picture, same words). When it comes to the community review it is a matter of luck, but if you try both with and without an upgrade it will probably be sent to different groups of reviewers.
When appealing to Niantic your best bet is to list up how it meets all the different criteria. In a sense it is also a game of chance, the more attempts you make, the higher chance you will have for success.
Unfortunately, they could be viewed as generic businesses or being indistinct, if there are several in a given area. Yes, they meet certain parts of the criteria, but not all that’s needed for approval. While others may have gotten approved in the past, most likely by reviewers, that doesn’t guarantee that any others will be approved in the future, especially with the ML these days.
I do take it that the stations you nominated were rejected by the ML, aka “our team” in the emails, and not the reviewers, aka “our community” in the emails. If this is the case, you can either try to nominate them again or appeal. Either way, you will have to be very specific as to why you believe they meet criteria, and make sure as to not mention that there are others with Wayspots currently.
It would just be a statement of fact, especially if you have other similar Wayspots on the review map. And I definitely think you are allowed to try to convince the people considering your review at Niantic.
Nominations with content that tries to sway and influence votes, such as dropping a codename or codewords in the title, description, or photo. Or making voting requests in the title, description, supporting information, or photo.
We are regularly reminded that just because something is currently a wayspot on the map doesn’t mean it is currently eligible. So I would not add this bit of information to your supporting information.
Just to be clear, I only mentioned that other bike rental wayspots have been approved in this discussion- I did not include that info in my submissions. I only mentioned that in an attempt to get actual clarification from niantic.
Yes, and others are saying that mentioning it in an appeal is a good thing, but again, Niantic could see it as influencing them to approve the nomination, and reject the appeal.
You want to do your best to follow the same criteria when submitting nominations/edits to the community in appeals. I just gave it as a reminder, just in case you do choose to appeal.
Oh, and Niantic reviews new submissions often (I’ve had a few edits reviewed by them as of late), and so yes, they do see all of the info that we would see while reviewing.
Most reviewers actually don’t have any detailed knowledge of the criteria (probably not even people at Niantic reviewing the appeals). That is why many ineligible things keep getting approved while many eligible things are rejected. As long as you are not saying anything that is false, asking for votes or cheating in some other way you should argue as best as you can for it to be accepted.
I’m all for including supporting information for the Wayspots you are nominating. Making sure you explain how it is a Great place to be social, exercise, or explore. But it needs to pass on its own merits.
Thank you, all. One thing I am thinking of adding in future submission notes is how important these stations are to the local community who do not have cars and rely on these as their main mode of transportation or to get from the nearest bus/train stop to their destination or home, as the city is big. Would that be something you would recommend adding?
I’ve never read that rule i the way you are applying it.
Anytime someone provides information they are attempting to influence voters. I’ve put links to this forum in supporting when I know theres a clear niantic clarification on the subject. That’s just information. No different than saying a restaurant won an award.
The examples that paragraph gives or implies is shady stuff like codewords, or hey vote for this so Team Instinct can get another gym, or if you approve this I’ll approve that
If a person said, I nominated this because it is similar to bike rentals at coordinates X, Y, Z… thats not asking for a vote, that’s providing info to reviewer who maybe looks at that other spot and thinks that submission was simply better photo, description, etc
The main point against this nomination is that it’s jsut a rental place. You pay a fee, and get an item.
Not everything involved in a sport is eligible. The bike is not the wayspot, nor is the store or place you get it. (Bike racks are only eligible if they’re decorative.) Just like the soccer ball is not the wayspot, nor the place you bought it. Some sporting good stores have art, climbing wall, taxidermized animals - things that meet the “explore” category. But just the fact that they sell stuff that you’d use to exercise - does not.
Maybe Niantic will clarify that the place you acquire sports equipment qualifies. But I don’t think they will. That would open up a big can of worms.
Exactly. The whole point of submitting a stop in the first place is to influence other people into accepting it and putting it into the game.
This is only tangentially related, but I think manipulatively and deliberately placing the marker in an incorrect spot in an attempt to add another stop is way more egregious than straight up begging or saying “we need another Stop in this area.”
It doesn’t really matter if there are other similar spots already approved because the database is full of things that should never have been approved. Not really a strong argument.
The better argument would be to explain how the site is a great place to exercise, a great place to explore, or a great place to socialize. A place where you can rent a bike that you will use to explore isn’t necessarily itself a great place to explore. One can make the argument that the bike rental place is no more encouraging of exercise than a sidewalk is encouraging of exercise or a shoe store that sells running shoes.
It shouldn’t matter, but it obviously does matter. Like when you see something ineligible pop up a lot similar things will be nominated because it will make players think it is eligible. Every hole on a disc golf course for instance. Reviewers look to the Wayspots they are familiar with to judge what should be accepted, even though they shouldn’t. And I think even Niantic wants some consistency.
I wasn’t arguing that point, I was asking for clarification as to what was eligible or not. That is why I mentioned it, and I wish I hadn’t because everyone seems to be getting caught up in that point.
