Wayspot Submission for Historical Sidewalk Stamp (30th & Daniels St. #1)
Description
Historical sidewalk stamp marked “S. P. White” dated “1913”. Designating the historic company that erected the sidewalk and the location of w. “30th St. & Daniels St.”, which is also stamped into sidewalk along the walk way of this historic downtown Vancouver, WA neighborhood.
Supplemental Information
Sidewalk stamps are urban fossils that are becoming more rare as cities renew and rebuild with modern times. This is located in a historic neighborhood along a main walking route, and connects local history of the past to the present day. As a direction marker, these are still functional & charming.
The last two photos were of a couple “sidewalk stamps” that were approved in the neighboring city of Portland. The others that were approved were approved with by the same criteria and had no “special” markings or anything that set them apart from the one I submitted. It’s not a “generic business” as the company is a historic business and the stamp serves as a historic stamp denoting the time period when the neighborhood was being built and modernized. These are not found on ever corner as they tend to disappear after more recent modernization and development occurs in the downtown Vancouver WA area (meaning they’re unique, and the “co.” or year isn’t even the same depending on which block or sidewalk your on.
I believe the rejected submission you are referring to is at 45.64316361361031, -122.67507701382819, which appears to be a residential neighborhood, which could be one reason for rejection.
Another could be that it may not be safe, as the stamp faces the street, not the sidewalk. If it faced the inside of the sidewalk, it would be considered safe for pedestrians, but as it faces the street and is on the street corner, it can be viewed as unsafe.
Keep in mind that just because other sidewalk stamps have been approved in the past doesn’t guarantee they will be approved in the future. Just looking up the one by the Baptist church, it’s description is “Marks the former site of Edlefsen Weycandt Co.” Edlefsen Weygandt Co., the correct spelling, did lay the sidewalk, and there’s no record of them having an office there of any kind. It is next to a business though, is in the middle of the sidewalk in a safe area, so it is eligible; it just needs an update to the description.
The Schrumpf and Steele one is listed correctly as a sidewalk marker, and is outside of a parking lot. Now, that parking lot does appear to be for an elementary school, but the stamp doesn’t appear to be close to the school grounds. It also isn’t next to the street, instead closer to the fence for the parking lot. It is near a fire hydrant, which is a bit worrying.
While there is no clear clarification with sidewalk stamps, I do see them similar to survey markers, and we do have clarification on how they can be ineligible.
Hi,
Appreciate the feedback and explanation. However I have to politely disagree that it may be “potentially unsafe” as it’s a sidewalk nonetheless and the users responsible for their safety and in general when walking anywhere. The submission was marked as ineligible because “generic business” and that’s the only supporting statement about why the submission wasn’t approved. There are lots of other stops in residential areas, and I don’t remember reading where that makes a submission or pokestop ineligible either. I do understand that private property is not allowed, but this is on a sidewalk in a quiet historic neighborhood. I still don’t feel it’s ineligible but thank you for your insight and potential reasons it wasn’t accepted.
My question is how can I resubmit or know when a potential sidewalk stamp is “eligible” if there’s no clear eligibility criteria that is being fairly applied?
The sidewalk stamp in question is located at 45.64317° N, 122.67509° W
I still see it as unsafe, and thus, I would not resubmit. I feel this one will keep getting rejected for being too close to the street. You never know when someone could be playing one of the games, forget where they are, step onto the street, and not see a car coming. Your supporting photo even shows the street berm and the street, basically showing that it could be an unsafe area for gameplay.
I also think it will be rejected for being near private property. Even if the stamp is on the sidewalk, if that sidewalk is on private property, it’s ineligible. Again, some may have gotten these stamps through before, but with any submission, there’s never a guarantee of approval.
Why the generic business rejection, this is something we don’t know, except it’s a favorite of ML. I’m assuming your rejection email said “our team” rejected it, meaning the ML, which is the AI, instead of the community. If this is the case, i do believe this is the correct decision for the submission.
Hello again,
So … maybe I was just misunderstanding how these submissions and the potential criteria works. I was able to find the help topic/discussion with the photo you used in your response. I see now where it just varies by location and therefore as you were saying this might’ve been a sub-optimal stamp and location. Appreciate the feedback.
A stamp in the middle of the road, or that required entering a water hazard or secure armed-response area can all be construed as unsafe.
In what universe would a stamp on an actual public pedestrian sidewalk be unsafe?
I take a great deal of umbrage with the notion that there is some particular form of usage required of spot in order for it to be interesting. I have never in life ‘used’ a church, community baseball diamond, fire department, etc., but this fact does not preclude me nominating, viewing or spectating at historical examples of these things.
Are you saying that people would fall over trying to view the stamp? They can’t just tilt their head, look through their legs, or take a photo and flip it over?
Perhaps they should exercise their brains a bit and turn the writing around in their minds. Or will that sprain something?
Keep in mind that, every time you open up one of Niantic’s games, they tell you to be aware of your surroundings. This is for liability reasons, as Niantic doesn’t want Wayspots in areas that may be unsafe, and, if someone gets hurt while playing a game there, sues them.
Not everyone remembers where they are when raiding a gym; their more concerned with winning and then catching, so their eyes will be glued to their screens.
Again, it’s a liability issue, and Niantic doesn’t want to be liable for any player getting injured, or even worse, when playing their games.
Playing a game (of any particular Niantic variety) doesn’t demand reading the contents of the real-world wayspot, nor are we supposed to consider the details of a specific game. Meeting at a sidewalk wayspot is every bit as safe as gathering at a bus stop or queuing to enter a club.
We’ve never been instructed to review against some particular quantity of players nor to ensure they are all going to look at the point of interest from the same orientation simultaneously while engaged with playing their game.
I’ll be happy to wait til later or view the object sidewise or upside-down.
I am not understanding the historical importance of this poi. Can you explain to me why who poured the concrete in what year is important? I am not saying that it is not, just it can help you to make your case if you have to explain it to someone who doesn’t get it.
We are told that gameplay is supposed to happen at the exact spot the Wayspot is at, not from a distance. So yes, safety needs to be taken into account, and as previously mentioned, Niantic does not want to be held liable for a player’s injuries or worse while playing one of their games.
Safe gameplay has nothing to do with looking at the Wayspot; it’s about whether or not the area where the Wayspot is is a safe place to play. This stamp is very, very close to the street. If a person was standing on that corner while playing, and they forget they are near the street, walk onto the street, well, they could get hurt by a vehicle.
It seems as though you might not understand liability well, but anyone that has any kind of insurance knows you typically are required to have some liability coverage. Therefore, if you are found liable for a car accident, for example, your insurance may cover some or all of the costs.
Niantic has a liability clause in their terms of service, noting that there are limited areas where they can and cannot be held liable; getting injured while playing their games is something they can be held liable from in certain places. It’s part 12 in the terms of service:
The OP hasn’t asked anymore about this submission, so I assume they have moved on. I’m also like @cyndiepooh and don’t see the historical significance, but in this area they may have some significance that we aren’t aware of.
Hightlighting other wayspots nearby that could be similar is not an indication of acceptability so is irrelevant.
I am an urban explorer and I like finding unusual oddities as I walk around.
So I think I may well stop and look at this.
Would I feel safe looking at it. Probably. But I would give it a long hard look as it depends on would I be a nuisance to fellow pedestrians if I was stood there whilst others tried to cross. So suitability of this location does need to be assessed. The suitability of this place may be totally different from another. This is why just seeing something similar elsewhere does not make for an auto accept.
There is then the question of just how interesting is this. Writing the word historic repeatedly doesn’t make something a good wayspot. Tell me more about why these were installed in the first place. How rare are they? Precisely what was this corner like in 1913? Why would this be worthy of inclusion compared to a street sign at that corner which might date from 1913. I live in an area built between 1900-1920 and the original street signs are in place they are ordinary infrastructure here and I wouldn’t consider submitting.
Answering these sorts of questions will draw out if this is something of note or an idle curiosity not worth a second glance.
For me this is definitely safe, and isn’t single family private residential property, so I do not believe either of those things are valid rejections. You can stand on top of it by standing on the pavement, so thats completely safe.
I think it could be at least as interesting as a british postbox I can see how some people would be interested enough to look out for these as they explore an area, so I would be willing to accept well written nominations for them.
I dont think its the most thrilling waypoint Ive ever seen but I dont think it needs to be rejected either. Stuff like this can be interesting and I’ve tried to submit a 130 year old decorative lamp post that was made in my town at an old foundry which is now an apartment complex called “foundry quarter” because of the significance of the business. Thats been rejected twice so far, yay for me. So I do understand that what we find interesting isnt interesting to the ML or reviewers sometimes
I agree try not to rely on repeating “historical” a lot - but thats a minor critique.
I can see how some people would be interested enough to look out for these as they explore an area, so I would be willing to accept well written nominations for them.