Additional Information: Men’s Warehouse is a generic chain of men’s fashion & apparel. It is not a place for exercise, socializing, or exploration, merely a place to shop for clothing. Previous statements have indicated that abusively/incorrectly accepted Wayspots could be removed. This would never be deemed acceptable under current or past criteria.
The niantic team has decided that for trail markers specifically and uniquely, that rejection criteria is sufficient for removal. This is a stark departure from all previous precedence. When the community questioned what was going on and why trail markers were being removed en masse in certain areas we were given a framework by which to judge them. A framework that does not align with any other aspects of our understanding of what the Wayfarer criteria are or how to apply them.
Additionally, this more stringent framework fits very neatly with other types of candidates such as the examples in this very thread.
“why is this place special and what have you done to explain that”
For some time now we have been observing niantic approve wayspots such as the ones in this thread despite this stringent guidance very clearly not being followed and this has continued even after that guidance was provided purely for trail markers.
This is unacceptable and the general consensus among the reviewing community agrees with me that it is unacceptable.
We are asking for consistency.
Consistency in policy for removals.
Consistency in the application of guidelines around importance, uniqueness, significance.
And we are frustrated. And sometimes that frustration comes through in the form jokes and those jokes should not be removed from this forum purely because an individual disagrees with them.
It shouldn’t be on the map if it’s not eligible. Full stop.
It’s not eligible for a reason, and it only serves to confuse newer Wayfinders who see it on their map in PoGO or Ingress and think, well that got in over there so I should be able to nominate one of those over here. Then they nominate it, or a few of them and possibly get an “educational warning” email.
For example: We’ve had several firehouses removed here, what if a brand new Wayfinder saw the one or two that haven’t been removed yet on their map in PoGO and decided to use their 40 nominations to nominate every Firehouse in town? I think we all know how that would end…
Rejection criteria shouldn’t stop applying to Wayspots after they are incorrectly accepted.
To be frank, I see the approval of these Wayspots abusive, on the stark similarly of Wayspots removed in Netherlands. This is a generic chain retail service with many locations across the state & country. The dental office is, well, a dental clinic.
Would you please look into those accounts that reviewed it and offer educational services?
100% agree with the abuse angle which is specifically listed as a removal criteria. Businesses like these meet no criteria and are nominated just to put wayspots (read: pokestops) in places that otherwise have little to nothing of interest. That’s the singular goal of nominating such things and is definitionally abuse.
I had one hidden for saying d-amn. Didnt realise that was such a bad word. Think it was also a joke. Jokes arent allowed. Nor are trail markers. Shops are cool though
