A few weeks ago a friend from London sent me a gift from a sweet shop / confectionery shop. I live near a bakery and would like to create a pokestop (yes, the cell is empty).
I made two attempts, but both were rejected (And they were very quick, which I found very strange, as assessments take time). I noticed that there is a “pokestop” there, but in another Niantic game, not in Pokémon Go.
Could anyone help me?
The locations is: -20.261117, -40.297435
Hi! I would suggest starting by sharing the nominations you tried in full (include all photos and all text). What you describe sounds like automated ML rejections so as a first step we would need to try to address that.
Note that Wayfarer isn’t based on empty cells or on having seen a wayspot of a similar type in game, but rather on whether the object meets one of the following three criteria: is it a great place to explore, exercise or socialize?
Cafés, bakeries etc could very well be good places to at the very least socialize, but you must provide some proof of that in your nomination in order to make a case for it.
Also, could you tell us exactly where you saw the other wayspot (Pokémon GO duplicate check, Ingress Intel, Power spot?..), and was it for the same business?
I can’t tell you the name of the other Pokestop right now, since I’m not close to home. When I tried to create the Pokestop for the candy store, I noticed that there was already an exclamation mark symbol in the same location on the map.
Yes, the place has a good space for socializing and exploring - the sidewalk is wide, it is a place with a lot of people circulation due to the various shops nearby and a stationery store that is literally next to the candy store.
The photos
I would revise the reasoning and focus on what is being submitted. It should be conveyed that the point of interest itself is the driving factor for being a great place for socialization/exploration. Mentioning other POIs feel like the interest is not on the submitted shop but rather it being there on happenstance.
The above highlights the importance of good supporting evidence to better identify an acceptable business.
It may further help to post the nomination as presented during voting like previously asked.
I don’t know what photo you used exactly. If it was one of those you have shown it’s not a great look to have the shutter down.
What does it look like when it’s open?
You could take a picture that focuses on the name
It’s a little candy store, a place you go in and buy candy. They don’t have a place for people to eat. Isn’t a place where there is space outside for players to gather and play enough to be considered a good place for socializing?
I will try to crop the photo next time in case they delete it. Thanks. Here is an image of the location via Google Maps.
The criteria is not that it is a place that you can stand and socialize. The criteria is a GREAT place. If there isn’t anything about the place that encourages people to gather there, you may need to focus on it being a great place for exploration, if it offers something unique in the community.
I have to add that the making a case towards the eligibility criteria is more catered to the real life merits of the point of interest. While we’re mostly aiming to improve the gameboards of the games we play, how the real object/place relates to being a great place for socializing, exercise, or exploration is a bar to cross in terms of Wayfarer contributions.
Any place that has a sidewalk fits this description. However not all these places are places where people do choose to socialize in, excluding happenstance meetings. Wholly agree with Cyndie, what points can this specific candy store have relating to being a great place for exploration?
