I was recently finally able to get good photos of a pair of club tennis courts I’ve been meaning to nominate for months now, just that for the longest time said courts and the club in general have been pretty crowded with people. I figured that both of them would get accepted right away since tennis courts are about the most textbook exercise nominations there are.
One of those two tennis courts did get approved as I expected:
But for some reason, the other tennis court was rejected initially (there was no specific reason stated on the nomination). I immediately appealed it, figuring it would be a pretty simple matter to resolve, seeing how these are two physically separate tennis courts.
I think the appeal team just saw tennis court 2 go through and decided that the tennis court 1 nomination was simply me trying to nominate the same tennis court twice, when in fact they are two physically separate tennis courts, something which can be easily seen on the map:
The pin for tennis 1 is on the northern boundary fence for that tennis court, being as close to the actual entry gate of that court as possible while being in an open L17 cell. I am certain this issue can be resolved quickly.
Title: Mill Glen Tennis Court 1
Description: A tennis court at the Mill Glen Swim and Tennis Club.
Supplemental Info: Tennis courts are amazing places to exercise!
Location: 5529 Mill Trace Dr, Atlanta, GA 30338, USA
Just to clarify, did you do a check in the nomination map screen while you were on site with the toggle on to be sure there is no duplicate?
Separately enclosed court areas have been recognized as separately eligible nominations ever since I have been a Wayfarer, so I am following this post to see if there is an explanation.
(A statement of that eligibility was tracked back to the old Google Plus platform, so is something I can’t link.)
Yeah, there were no prior Wayfarer-related pins on either tennis court when I actually made the nominations in-game. No Ingress Portals showed up on the IITC either, so it couldn’t have been nominated very long ago if it was. There was nothing at all to indicate that particular tennis court had ever been nominated at any point.
Just to clarify a little, it wasn’t the old “Google Chat” that some people recall and cite as criteria, it was a comment made by staff “NianticCasey” on the old Vanilla Wayforum but was actually deleted by NianticGiffard at some point when they were cleaning up posts on or around the 3.1 criteria refresh (where we moved away from categorical criteria to the “socialize, exercise, explore” criteria).
(I didn’t think you meant that chat @cyndiepooh, blame me for having an instant reaction to remembering people who made up statements and said they were lost to the gchat.)
Clearly I can’t cite my sources for this. I’ve searched for screenshots and been unsuccessful, but I’ve seen posts by myself and others referencing it.
For what it’s worth, I’d consider these intentionally distinct athletic fields, differentiated by the property managers, that distinctly support exercise and socializing (tennis is a social sport).
Ignoring the one on the west side, which is a separate POI as it is table tennis, these tennis courts are in wayfarer as a single wayspot. There are three separate POI using the (ambiguous) definition of “separately enclosed court areas’. I strongly disagree with this idea, but as both a longstanding wayfarer (@cyndiepooh) and an ambassador (@Gendgi) have proposed it, it could do with Niantic/Scopely clarification.
When it comes to football fields, id say if they are a decent enough distance away from each other (and not, for example, 3 right next to each other) or are different sizes (when I say Football, I mean soccer incase you dont mean that) so a 5 aside pitch, a 7 aside pitch and a 11 aside pitch, they can be done separately
@Meargler please go back and take a screenshot of the nomination map screen to confirm you are seeing the existing wayspot. Remember that the nearby check there does not work remotely. You must be right at the location for it to work. I asked about that in my first comment, but wasn’t as clear about it not working remotely.
Thanks, this does indeed clarify that issue. Distinct objects (which the ones in the op’s posting are) and having a unique title. Happily, this disqualifies the tennis courts I posted above and also disqualifies most multiple football fields next to each other (multiple set of goalposts on a large field, separated only by grass).
Whether it disqualifies the op’s multiple wayspots depends on whether they are uniquely titled, which we can’t tell from the info here.
Actually, each individual court has a label or name. But we limit ourselves to submitting only by the fences. If we submitted according to unique labels every single court would get a wayspot. The logic behind that (for me) is that different people play on each court. Separate games happen individually at the same time, therefore they are different wayspots. But we capitulate to these rules about fencing.
That’s a different interpretation of “unique title” that I had, so it shows that clarifying texts are really hard to make airtight so that everyone has the same interpretation.
made up examples:
Wayspot: Ratertall Park Tennis Courts
Wayspots: Ratertall Park Tennis Courts #1, Ratertall Park Tennis Courts #2 etc, where each court has a physical label numbering it.
I personally wouldn’t consider the numbers as giving them unique titles, but would call them one thing.
You would use whichever court was available at the time.
Would you set of from home saying “I’m off to play tennis on Court 2”?
To me this is exactly the same as golf courses, multiple games are being played at the different holes but only 1 should be nominated. Some may just play the 1st 9 holes, some the last 9…
