I am looking for any clear instruction, from Niantic (ie: not just random community members opinions, any actual official communication) on the following, regarding changing eligibility criteria over the years:
When eligibility criteria changes, does that apply to longstanding, already approved Waypoints? Or does it only apply to new submissions?
Specifically regarding State Survey Markers. Many of these were submitted and approved years ago - Niantic had confirmed their eligibility in AMAs/blogs at the time, and they were also featured Waypoints on the front page quite often.
Eligibility criteria has changed and they are no longer eligible to be submitted. However, does this mean that the Waypoints that were submitted and approved while they were eligible are to be removed?
Someone has been methodically requesting removal of State Survey Markers throughout my area. My understanding is that, as they were eligible at the time they were submitted, they do not require removal.
The following is from the Pikmin removal website, none of these reasons suggest removal pertaining to a CHANGING of eligibility requirements.
Can we get confirmation on if these removals are warranted, or if someone is just going into business for themselves (which at best would be a misunderstanding of guidelines and at worst would be malicious gameplay)
There’s no longer safe pedestrian access to the location.
The In-game Location obstructs or interferes with Emergency Services’ ability to perform normal operations. This includes, but isn’t limited to, fire stations, police stations, hospitals, military bases, industrial sites, power plants and air traffic control towers.
The In-game Location is not a permanent installation. This includes seasonal displays that are only put up during certain times of the year.
They are natural features, including pictures of landscapes as well as submissions where the subject is a lake, river, stream, mountain, volcano, waterfall. Note that photos that include man-made points of interest - plaques, signs, etc. - near natural features are acceptable.
The In-game Location has been permanently removed or is a duplicate of an existing In-game Location.
The In-game Location’s real-world location appears to be within 40 meters of private residential property.
A lot of those state survey markers are on roads and this can be a removal criterium for their removal.
I will leave the rest to someone else, just wanted to clarify this:
Featured wayspots are not per definition a reflection of the eligibility criteria. These are automatically selected, so it can happen that something ineligible turns out to be a featured wayspot. As confusing as that may sound this is how it is, as anyways existing wayspots can NEVER be used as criteria, because things change and sometimes reviewers make mistakes.
It might help if you could provide more information and examples of what is being removed.
Removals just like submissions are judged on an individual basis. As there could be a number of reasons why they are being removed providing examples such as the area and if you have the information the wayspots will help establish an appropriate response.
Hi and welcome, sorry for replying to you as a community member, but 1. I am not aware of any recent official communication from the Wayfarer team on the absolute and categorical eligibility or ineligibility of any kind of object, that is simply not how the criteria work - eligibility is always dependent on context, 2. the removal of previously accepted invalid wayspots is also situational and depends on the evidence available at this time for them meeting removal criteria or not.
With the two points above in mind I think you are very unlikely to get any broad ruling from the team specifically on these objects. The latest Criteria Clarification Collection post on survey markers from Niantic has been shared to you above (again note that it is for highlighting how the thought process works for some of the examples, not for asserting categorical eligibility), and context regarding the showcase as well. You may have better luck sharing wayspots that you estimate were unfairly removed, and the community here can advise on whether it’s worthwhile filling removal appeals here on the forum for these.
Niantic has systematically removed some survey markers in Australia in the past few months. Maybe they’re branching out with that. It’s their database; they can do what they want.
Notable survey markers are still valid, like at the top of a mountain trail, or one placed over 100 years ago at someplace historic, or other circumstances I haven’t heard yet but I’m open. Assuming they don’t meet exclusion reasons.
But many survey markers were approved that never did qualify. In the road, on private property, or generic mass produced. (“Mass produced” used to be listed as a reason for rejection.)
Some places have HUGE numbers of generic survey marker wayspots close together. They choke out actually interesting things. Niantic isn’t trying to build a database of survey markers. I understand why they’re removing them in areas.
I also don’t think they’re going to share their “secret sauce” of how their removals work, or what will be targeted next, where.
There have been dozens of stops - I would actually estimate close to 100 over the broader area, but I do not know an exact number. I dont have screenshots of each individual one. I am also not interested in filing appeals, I just want to know why a specific category of Waypoints that were acceptable when submitted are being removed en masse, whether this is Niantic clearing house, or a disgruntled community member, and what the stance is regarding mass-removal of previously eligible points.
This is what Im interested in finding out - if it is NIANTIC specifically marking these for removal, or if it is a community member who is of the belief that if something becomes ineligible, it warrants removal of the previously accepted waypoints. I have thus far been unable to find any clear communication on this.
Also - “many survey markers were approved that never did qualify” - they did. I’ve found many comments on reddit from 4yr ago linking to a November AMA confirming they did. And this is the time these wayspots were submitted. Unfortunately, it seems Niantic has nuked these old pages, because the links are now broken. Ive been unable to find a screenshot, just people linking directly.
But Niantic’s removal of previous advice is whats leading to arguments like these - over whether or not they were ever eligible. I understand the need to keep info up to date, in which case the AMAs should remain, and be edited to state “this advice has been superseded by XYZ post” with a link to that.
Deleting previous posts with clarification just muddies the water further and leads to unnecessary confrontation. Especially considering that we are having this exchange, when it wasnt the crux of my question. Which was “what is Niantic’s stance on removal of previously eligible Waypoints”.
To reiterate, I will copy/paste the comment I made previously regarding.
I’ve found many comments on reddit from 4yr ago linking to a November AMA confirming they did. And this is the time these wayspots were submitted. Unfortunately, it seems Niantic has nuked these old pages, because the links are now broken. Ive been unable to find a screenshot, just people linking directly.
But Niantic’s removal of previous advice is whats leading to arguments like these - over whether or not they were ever eligible. I understand the need to keep info up to date, in which case the AMAs should remain, and be edited to state “this advice has been superseded by XYZ post” with a link to that.
Deleting previous posts with clarification just muddies the water further and leads to unnecessary confrontation. Especially considering that we are having this exchange, when it wasnt the crux of my question. Which was “what is Niantic’s stance on removal of previously eligible Waypoints”.
If anything, this exchange with you right now is a prime example for why a clear record of changes in eligibility should be maintained, rather than deleting previous AMAs that confirmed/denied the eligibility of certain things. I have put the link in Wayback Machine, no luck. Its almost like this exchange with you could be cleared up rather quickly had they not deleted the posts.
Not really helpful given its not the November 2020 AMA, but I appreciate you trying.
I find it hard to believe that hundreds of survey markers in my area, likely well over a thousand state wide, were erroneously approved over a span of years, when each Waypoint is reviewed individually by different people in the community.
Again - this calls for clarity in past changes, to avoid passive aggressive comments “helping me out” with information 18months prior to the post I was referring to.
The “Suggested Vote” star system (Roli quoted) was released in 2016. It was the very first documentation for this crowd-sourced wayspot reviewing. Years before PokemonGo existed. Note that is says “ACCEPT IF”.
Also, as I said, back then we were told that “generic mass produced” was a reason to reject. It was understood to cover things like utility poles, sidewalks, corporate art, and survey markers that were not “on a trail or helps you explore”.
(One byproduct was that people rejected picnic tables that were generic mass produced, available to purchase at Home Depot. That’s part of why the “criteria refresh” of 2021 - now it’s obvious that even a generic mass produced picnic table is eligible under the “social” criteria. And the other things generally don’t meet any criteria.)
Consider it this way, only a handful of things are to be excluded from consideration. Things on SFPRP, schools, blocks emergency service, etc…
Truly eligible items are now defined as something that is one or more of the following: A great place to be social with others explore, or exercise.
As an example of a class of items that isn’t ineligible are Benches. But not all benches fit with eligibility. Beaches that are very artistic could be an example of something to explore. Similarly with Memorial benches representing a person that was important to the community. A bench can even be an anchor for a scenic view.
I see the discussion of the markers to be similar to the benches. Some work and some don’t. This hasn’t changed. What has changed is that Niantic is now willing to remove the ones that don’t meet eligibility (great place to be social, exercise, or explore). They are also will to remove graffiti now (non-sanctioned street art).
Please note Im referring to a 2020 November AMA, not the 2016 guidelines for OPR/Ingress.
Pokemon Go was also released in 2016, so those guidelines are not years before Pokemon Go existed. Just as an FYI.
Years before Pokemon Go could submit anything - those were still done through Ingress. But not existence.
I understand you are talking about the 2016 OPR guidelines - Im talking about a November 2020 clarification that Niantic has removed the page for, so all the links to it are dead.
In 2020, the eligibility criteria were “great places to explore, exercise, or socialize” (which has NOT changed). The AMA did not introduce generic survey markers as great places to explore or exercise.
Since players do not have the ability to remove portals, and it’s the Wayfarer team making the decisions (for hundreds of survey markers), it’s pretty obvious that the answer is yes, they mean it.
