If needed, please feel free to delete my post. It’s a topic that’s not really worth really asking.
Oh no. We only need the format “question”. Tell me how you would like it and I’ll change it for you.
I understand what you are saying and I appreciate what you are offering, but on reflection, I don’t think it’s worth the effort.
Should I delete your question?
Yes please.
1 Like
Done 
1 Like
I don’t think we should be moving discussions of questions back here. It’s unfair to the future readers. The discussions may reveal some nuance that may sway the readers’ opinion on whether or not they should vote on the question asked. If it is all moved here, the discussion will be buried and the majority of the readers wont see it.
Just want to clarify, you probably want (level 14) and (level 17) S2 cells, not 20 and 17.
Level 14 cells are approximately 500m x 500m, can be divided into 64 level 17 cells,
while level 17 cells are smaller, approximately 70m x 70m, and spacing rules allow no more than 1 pokestop in level 17 cell,
and then you can split level 17 cell into 64 even smaller level 20 cells, but there is nothing to do here, because the spacing rule allows only 1 stop per level 17.
So the “worth investigating” regions can be probably similar to the “new areas added” in the monthly statistics email.
I think 30 days is way too harsh, but 1 day many players will not even notice, open game, something is wrong, close, open couple days later.
Perhaps 7 days is more reasonable.
No entiendo que habemos personas con un alto índice de acuerdos, que para lograrlo es porque entendemos las que son elegibles, pasamos por una evaluación con personas que tienen un alto nivel de evaluación con sus respectivos acuerdos y no personas sin acuerdos, que evalúen a las que llevamos 1500 acuerdos solo para rechazar nuestras aportaciones.
@llmiconll could you please amend the title to the form of a question?
If it won’t let you reply to this message and we will do it for you.
Sorry.
An error is displayed and cannot be corrected.
I apologize for the inconvenience, but I would appreciate it if you could make the following change:
Title: “What is the scope of land classified as residential homes and schools (K-12)?”
I don’t think any length of ban is unreasonable on a 2nd offence. My comment was not to change the 1 day warning to a 1 day ban. IMO: People make mistakes so a warning for the 1st offence seems appropriate.
Another option would be to increase the number of rungs…
- 1 day warning.
- 7 day suspension.
- 30 day suspension.
- 90 day suspension.
- 180 day suspension.
- 360 day suspension.
- 3600 day suspension.
but with an automatic 2 rung increase for a repeat of a same offence?
No problem, and done
1 Like
Thank you for the correctionThank you for the correction!
That was a big help.
Indeed, so easy to mix those up…
So you are right
Having read this I have amended it to level 14 and 17 hope that is ok.
1 Like
Why are we always focusing on the negativity of ideas. This would benefit far more people than it wouldn’t. If I can see something on the map that is already in queue or voting, I’m not going to waste my nomination on it.
Sure, this could be used to snake other people but those people are likely using upgrades to get their stuff through in those “cut-throat” areas anyway so I don’t understand what you’re getting at.
2 Likes
“We”? 
I like the idea, by the way, having a pending wayspot on the map is almost as cool as adding a permanent one, that said,
I’m quite positive that the pending map will be full of nominations which will not be accepted, or should not be accepted, or are blatant garden gnomes and fakes, so there is that 
2 Likes
What happens if person B is at a location sees that its been submitted and skips it, Persons A submission gets rejected… now theres no waypoint.