The current Niantic Wayfarer guideline — which states that memorial benches are only eligible if the honoree is a “notable figure,” and that memorials for friends or family are generally ineligible unless “evidence of importance to the community” is provided — can unintentionally carry discriminatory and demeaning implications for the people being remembered.
- It Implies That Only “Notable” Lives Are Worth Recognition
Requiring notability sets an extremely narrow standard that excludes the vast majority of meaningful community members. Many people make quiet but deeply impactful contributions — long-term volunteers, caregivers, local workers, mentors, and neighbors — whose value cannot be captured through public records or fame.
This policy indirectly suggests that a person must achieve a certain level of public visibility for their memorial to be considered meaningful enough, which can feel dismissive to the families who dedicated the bench and to the communities that cherished that individual.
- It Invalidates the Cultural Practice of Local Memorialization
Across many cultures and communities, dedicating a bench, tree, or plaque is a collective act of remembrance. These memorials are placed in public spaces specifically to invite reflection, connection, and community identity.
By labeling these installations as “mass-produced” or insignificant unless tied to public notability, the criteria overlooks the societal and emotional purpose behind these memorials and reduces them to generic objects rather than meaningful cultural markers.
- It Places an Unfair Burden on Grieving Families or Friends
Asking nominators to “prove” someone’s importance to the community is not only difficult but also emotionally insensitive.
Most families honoring a loved one with a plaque did not do so with the expectation of collecting press articles or formal documentation about that person’s contributions.
The requirement can force nominators into a position where they must justify the worth of a loved one’s life to strangers — an experience that can feel belittling or even traumatic.
- It Doesn’t Consider Site Value, Only Person-Based Value
Wayfarer criteria encourage reviewers to examine:
• exploration value
• community gathering points
• markers that encourage reflection
A memorial bench already fulfills these criteria by providing:
• a designated resting or gathering place
• a point of interest tied to the setting
• a landmark that supports exploration of a public space
However, the current rule shifts the focus away from location-based value — which is the core of Wayfarer — and applies a standard based solely on personal fame, which is not aligned with how other candidate types are evaluated.
- It Creates Inconsistency Across Other Eligible Objects
Wayfarer allows:
• art made by unknown artists
• historical markers for small events
• informational signs on everyday topics
These are accepted based on the value of the object or location, not the fame of the person connected to it.
Applying a stricter standard only to memorials creates an inconsistent and arguably inequitable classification.
Conclusion
The guideline may have been created to prevent saturation of identical plaques, but its wording and application unintentionally devalue the people and families commemorated through these installations.
A more inclusive approach would focus on the memorial’s placement, cultural meaning, and role within the public space, rather than requiring nominators to validate the worthiness or notability of the person being honored.
nothing is always eligible or ineligible.
