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:
Who is exploring the industrial campus of a company?
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
The example that the OP provided is a generic business and not open to the public. The company may not even want the public to be hanging out near the business and playing games.
You have to review each location and determine if it’s a safe location for play. Like I noted about the mural I recently reviewed, it wasn’t in a safe location. Murals are great to explore, but if they are in an area where people are restricted and there is vehicle traffic, it’s ineligible. It’s a liability for people to be standing in this area and possibly getting hurt not just for the company, but possibly Niantic as well. If someone is injured, they, the company and possibly Niantic, may have to pay a good amount of money to cover for medical care.
It depends on context and there’s no good “one answer fits all” stance.
A power plant or oil refinery location should likely be ineligible.
If you’re relying on appeals and removal requests, I think you’re seeing a limited reflection that only looks at removal rational and not rejection criteria. Furthermore, we see rejection appeals handled differently since most are faction accessibility issues or Gym accessibility rather than actual industrial accessibility.
I have to get going, but I just want to remind others that the player guidelines, which Wayfarer does follow like other Niantic products, notes the following:
- Remain aware of your environment and avoid going into any inappropriate or dangerous areas, or any area where you are not permitted to be. Do not trespass.
I love maps.
I don’t think all maps encourage exploration.
Accessibility is 1000% a rejection criteria. The point of interest is not safely accessible by pedestrians then it gets rejected.
It’s a big stretch in my opinion to say that an industrial area or a business campus is a great place to explore. There’s probably a handful of exceptions in this world for sure, but for the most part, it just isn’t true.
POIs Need to be a great place to explore, and that they need to be intended for exploration. I mean, I could go to my neighbor’s house and explore it, but their house really wasn’t meant to be explored, there is probably little too explore, and they probably wouldn’t appreciate it much. Just because something can happen someplace doesn’t mean that it was intended to happen that way or that is a great place for it to happen.
This exact same argument applies to apartment complexes and gated communities.
Yes, it is all right to have spots in those locations?
As long as an authorized someone is allowed to walk up and touch something, it can be a wayspot (assuming it meets one of the Big Three Criteria).
