Generic. Mass Produced. Unexciting etc etc etc this should not exist as a way spot
Also description wise
It is not at the top of Calderwood Hill. Just saying because there is no such place as Calderwood Hill. IT is not on top of any thing. The hill to the West keeps rising.
YEs I know this is automated. But if you want people to improve in the quality in submitting or reviewing stop with doing this.. :- ) PLEASE
I would argue that criteria doesnt say “no” to these, the description makes a great case that reviewers were convinced on accepting… now if that text is not correct and made up is a different story.
The criteria clarification criteria states ““is an example of an ineligible survey marker. It is mass-produced, located in an unremarkable location with little value for exploration, and is potentially unsafe for pedestrians due to its location on the verge of the road””.
This survey mark in Showcase is like a carbon copy of that
Additionally Wayferer Rejection criteria states ((Niantic Wayfarer))
" Does not meet eligibility criteria
IF
“” The object is mass-produced, generic, or not visually unique or interesting""
Now if either of these statements are wrong then there is a problem. Because there are 100 and 100s of thousands of these types of marks across Australia.
So I am not sure what part of generic - mass produced we are missing here. Please explain so I can understand.
The wrong description is neither here not there for generic and mass produced. And there is a good chance it fails on danger as well. As most not all of these generic, mass produced, two inch metal disks nailed to the ground , are built into the road verge/gutter/kerb.
But hey love to know where I am wrong here in my reading of the criteria clarification page and the rejection criteria page.
ALL of the survey markers are generic or mass produced as an object, however they can be eligible for helping anchor an exploration point, much like a bench can anchor a scenic lookout. What makes it unique, historic or explore worthy is based on reviewers best judgement. If the details that helped sway those reviewers is false and fake, that is where the problem is with that nomination.
Wayfarer team and Ambassador should once discuss what things should qualify and what things should disqualify about the markers.
In fact, there are too many markers that conform to these mass-produced products and this is because the issue of things that conform to mass-produced goods that have changed shape and form in various countries is becoming a issue.
So it would be better for Wayfarer if it were set forth a little more strictly.
Because if you give people too wide a gray zone, you will allow some people to spread their arbitrary interpretations, and that will damage the value of Wayfarer.
From my experience – these are generally approved in Australia.
Maybe mass produced but each has a unique number.
They are important for land surveys, town & country planning etc.
Reviewers may be looking for agreements and voting these would down will not help their rating.
The “showcase” is featuring great examples of recent, new spots. Therefore it must be eligible. I know some argue it is picked by machine without supervision. BUT – the powers that be – have had well over a year to change the process if they are unhappy with it. I, personally, have not seen the company publishing critical comments re showcase picks.
More spots mostly improve the game play experience for players. Ultimately the players pay for this site.
What matters is what kind of experience you can have at the location where that survey stake is placed. If there were no Wayspot, it wouldn’t meet the criteria as if nothing existed there. To me, even if it’s the top of a hill as far as I can see, it just looks like a residential area.
While improving the game experience is important, we should adhere to the Wayfarer eligibility criteria.
Few years ago when only a certain area would show up as featured. Only blue mountains did and for. Whole 6 months the 3 featured showcase pokestops were permanently these. They are extremely common in nsw. (I submitted one or two back then) because featured said cool yeah why not for 6 months straight. Emily is down now so they’re flying in fast. Atleast 1/10 reviews is one.
I will note though - it is not at the top of the hill too. So the text is wrong too. But you know hey don’t let a little thing like that get in the way of getting yet another survey mark being added to the wayfarer map.
I think you mean they are added to the wayfarer map even when they do not meet criteria. Only kidding Roli112. I have seen a few get removed.
Any way my point was and remains - do not put a classic fail nomination as a feature showcase.
99.99999% or more of these survey marks will never meet criteria. But - by - showcasing it you (not you personally but Wayfarer) only further legitimise others nominating and accepting these.
I hear this showcase is automated. However this is where Wayfarer should be actually bringing up quality, showing value. Using it as an education tool on what makes that grade - both for new contributors and existing.
