I get many nominations of signs with maps over either residential or commercial/industrial areas. While I can see how it’s informative you only really need that information if you’re going to visit someone’s house or a business.
How do I review these?
Example:
When I have doubts, I always go back to this statement from the Criteria Acceptance page at Niantic Wayfarer
Must meet at least one of the three eligibility criteria
- A great place for exploration
- A great place for exercise
- A great place to be social with others
I consider how well the submitter convinced me it meets one of those criteria. There is no handbook for which maps are generic and which promote exploration as far as I know. I would have to be convinced on this one.
Not all maps are worthy of being wayspots.
I like maps for trails - they meet the explore criteria in my opinion. And i like city maps that show you where interesting/touristy places are. I think those also fulfill the explore criteria.
But a map that shows the layout of a housing complex or a business area (or even a shopping center) doesn’t help me explore. It helps me find the one place I’m looking for to conduct business or run errands.
A comment of mine from a few month back:
With this reply:
I would approve this. This fits the exploration criteria imo
Who is exploring the industrial campus of a company?
I do. There are guided tours to such campuses. Not everything on the property of a company is ineligible. I would judge this object on its merits irrespective of the location unless it’s an ineligible location.
TBH, I think you’re just in the “more is better” mindset here. I absolutely do not believe that the purpose of this map is to help people explore this campus.
That’s your prejudice. I can assure you that it’s not like that. I think this meets the criteria and I would approve it. That’s my opinion.
However, I would not approve it if the location is in a place where heavy machinery operates.
Everything here is a generic business, and there’s nothing else to visit (sometimes these areas have parkland or lakes for example). I would lean towards rejecting.
i would agree that a map meets exploration criteria only if there is something there to explore. i would have to be convinced that it does. with a park, very little convincing is needed. with a commercial campus, it would be difficult to convince me.
One of the buildings is literally a FOUNDRY. That’s nothing but heavy machinery.
And look at all the warning signs in the background.
I don’t know what you’re talking about with my “prejudices.” This is clearly not a site meant for people to wander around on.
That building is not located anywhere near this sign. This map is at location that looks safe.
That was for your comment about “the more the better mindset”. I felt that was a prejudice.
OK. So it may be safe to stand at this map. But how does the map meet criteria?
Maps generally meet the Explore criteria. But if you CANNOT explore what is shown on the map, then it doesn’t meet the Explore criteria.
A map by itself does not meet any criteria if the only place you can stand is directly in front of it.
I would absolutely feel differently if this was a sign telling the history of this plant.
If this was an info board telling me about how it started back in 1580, I would smash those accept buttons!
I would explore this area if allowed. Moreover, accessibility is not a rejection criteria.
Some of these types of businesses are open to the general public but many are not and have secured property to limit access.
A map of a complex like this that just tells me warehouse locations and HR admin isn’t any more “intersting” (eligible) than the map at my office that tells me where HR sits, IT, or engineering services.
As for this exact example, there’s an rejection criteria that isn’t well explained or often discussed…
Accessibility is a rejection reason; it’s a downvote on Safe.
This reminds me of a mural I recently reviewed. Great mural, but it was in a car factory and off-limits to pedestrians. There were even signs in the supporting photo showing that it’s a zone that requires safety equipment, such as hard hats, to be worn. Work vehicles also roam around the hall and signs were up to look out for them, so not a safe place for one to play.
That’s safety and not accessibility. This is an area which doesn’t pose any safety hazard. People who work there or those who have the right to be at this location can access it without any safety concerns.
The question is this:
Publicly accessible a manufacturing area isn’t; it’s only accessible to those with permission. I’ve even worked at call centers in the past that required IDs to access, as they weren’t open to the public.
So, anything inside a business park that has employee only access should be rejected? That’s not open to public.
In my opinion, and in light of various clarifications by staff, that refers to locations that are accessible safely by people who have permission to be at that location.
