I understand that the criteria may not change quickly, and I’m not expecting an immediate shift from Niantic. My goal is simply to raise a concern about how the “notable figure” clarification affects memorial bench nominations, even when the location itself meets exploration or community value standards.
I do recognize that submitters need to show eligibility, and I agree that there are multiple ways to do that. My point is that tying memorial benches to notability creates challenges and inconsistencies, and I think it’s reasonable to discuss whether that part of the guideline could evolve in the future.
I’m not dismissing the existing process — I’m just offering feedback on an aspect that may benefit from reconsideration.
I understand that, and I appreciate you explaining it. My concern is that the Niantic clarification makes it harder to follow that approach, because it specifically calls out memorial benches and ties them to notability. That’s why I feel the guideline could use an update — it creates confusion about whether the memorial aspect can be separated from the location value. I’d just like to see clearer, more flexible criteria so submitters don’t feel they have to work around the memorial part to make a nomination valid.
I understand that several people here share that interpretation, but that doesn’t mean the clarification from Niantic reads that way to everyone. I’m not questioning anyone’s opinion — I’m pointing out that Niantic’s own wording about “notable figures” is what creates confusion in the first place.
So when I raise that concern, it’s not helpful to frame it as me being the only one who sees it differently. I’m simply discussing the criteria as written and how it might be improved or clarified.
IMO: The criteria for benches do not need to change.
The ones for people or groups which are widely notable (Monarchs / Armed Forces) etc are not going to be visited regularly by Family.
If a family pays for a memorial bench for a family member that liked to visit that location the family will probably like to visit especially on certain days (Birthday etc) and reconnect with the late family member and why the enjoyed the location. Get there and there is a large crowd doing a Max Raid!
The “Lets just repeat what’s on the plaque” is always going to get a Reject from me.
The “locally notable” is where it gets more difficult and unless there is a great write up I tend to Skip.
The other problem for me is that I don’t want a park to be filled it with 30 nominations for benches when lots of them could be blocking cells that have much more “IMO” interesting waypoints.
I get what you’re saying, and I’m aware that the clarification includes that part too. That’s actually why I think the guidance needs another look — one section emphasizes the “notable person” angle for memorial benches, while another section says benches with plaques can qualify based on location alone. Those two things don’t line up cleanly.
My point isn’t to ignore the parts that help — it’s that the wording overall creates mixed messages, and that’s why I’d like to see the criteria clarified more consistently.
I just realized that it may seem like forum regulars are piling on against you when we each try to make our points. I am going to tag out and leave it with others to discuss. You can tell we are all passionate about Wayfarer guidance, and how it can be clearer
Thanks for saying that — I appreciate the acknowledgment. It did start to feel a bit overwhelming, but I know everyone is passionate about Wayfarer and trying to help. I’m just bringing up a concern about how the guidance is worded, and I’m glad we’re at least having the conversation.
I understand what you’re saying, but this is where the confusion comes from for me. The clarification specifically highlights notability for memorial benches, while another part says benches with plaques can qualify purely based on location. Those two points don’t line up clearly, which is why I think the guidance could use clearer wording. My concern is about that inconsistency, not ignoring the criteria.
I’m focusing on the criteria, not on my writing style. The issue I’m raising is about how the notability section is worded and how it conflicts with other parts of the clarification. That’s what I’m trying to address.
And when I say “as written,” I’m referring directly to Niantic’s own clarification, which states: “Memorial benches can only be eligible under exploration if they are dedicated to a notable figure, and that notability is described in the nomination. Mass-produced memorial benches dedicated to friends and family are not eligible unless the nominator provides evidence of the individual’s importance to the community.”
That wording is exactly why I feel the guidance could benefit from clearer or more consistent phrasing.
They just mean benches where the only significant thing about the bench is that its a memorial
Benches can also be eligible for other reasons and if so, any memorial on them is irrelevant
If you have a carved bench in the shape of a bird with a memorial plaque on the back, whether the memorial is for a notable person is irrelevant because the cool bird carving would make it eligible
Hopefully that distinction now makes sense - I think you’re overthinking it. Submit your cool benches for whatever makes them cool
Because the exploration value doesn’t have to come from the person on the plaque. It can come from the location itself — for example, a viewpoint, a trail anchor, a meaningful spot in a park, or a place that encourages people to pause and explore the area. That’s why I’m questioning the emphasis on notability. A memorial bench can still add value to the space even if the honoree isn’t widely known.
I understand that benches can be eligible for reasons other than the memorial itself — that part makes sense. My point is simply that the way the clarification is written emphasizes notability so strongly for memorial benches that it creates confusion. I’m not overthinking it; I’m just referring directly to the wording Niantic used which again is “Memorial benches can only be eligible under exploration if they are dedicated to a notable figure…”
