What really influences reviews is how content is presented to convince reviewers that a nomination supports Niantic’s mission and follows the rules around abuse, accuracy, and intent.
The onus is always on the submitter to convince the reviewer that the nomination is acceptable. Sometimes that requires less effort than other times. But is always on the submitter.
The onus is always on the submitter to prove how the nomination meets Wayfarer criteria. Sometimes nominations are so obvious in how they meet the criteria, that the reviewer can make that judgment on their own. But especially when the nomination for anything is iffy, borderline, or not obvious, it behooves the submitter to provide as much evidence as they can.
Thank you all for your passionate and informative responses.
I have resubmitted the LFL in question showing that it is, in fact, in front of a 2-unit multi-family home and fully accessible from the public right of way (sidewalk). Hopefully the LFL can join the ranks of accepted portals and pokestops.
Lets clarify that if they are exclusively used by hunters. Some rural parks allow hunting for portions of the year, that shouldn’t make everything there ineligible.
I never thought of LFL as places open to the public, but now that you mention it, they kinda are. However, I think if they were just a portal or pokestop, sure, it would seem harmless but if that POI was a part of a FS event or a pogo event, it could be an issue. I run a pogo group and we can have up to 100 players–even if there were 10 players at a POI, especially if it was in someone’s yard would be a good not be a good thing.
Thanks this discussion is very helpful. I’m new here and know of a LFL nearby on a private residence that is a gym so figured there was maybe a carve out for these even though technically on a private residence. Admittedly kind of gray area since by nature LFLs are invite to the public, but makes sense why not allowed after the arguement that it could invite a ton of folks to gather in front of your house. IMO it would be worthwhile to make this example explicitly clear in the criteria, I’ve been seeing a ton of LFLs in the reviews so there is clearly some confusion here.
Same happened to me. Crazy thing about it is that not living near historical places in your area we get penalized and the people that live around them have advantages that doesn’t make things fair at all.
But isn’t that true for most things? I mean, people who live near amusement parks, get to go to the amusement park much more often than people who live hours and hours away. Or people who live next to a grocery store can go get food much more easily than people who have to drive an hour. I think it’s less than an issue of fair, and more just an issue of that’s how things are.
I agree with @Leedle95 . People really need to stop thinking that Wayfarer is punishing them for living in areas where there isn’t much to submit. Either by choice or by circumstance, you live in a virtually empty area. No one can do anything about that except you.
What can you do?
First, really study the criteria and learn to look with a critical eye. There may be a lot of eligible stuff you’re missing that could be submitted. I know this because i go around submitting in small towns and usually find well over 20 new wayspots to add, sometimes up to 40.
Second, talk to your local township about adding projects to give a better sense of community: walking trails, little free libraries in public spaces, plaques honoring local heroes, murals, etc. Some of those things may sound expensive but there are sometimes grants that can help pay for them.
Third, change your mindset that everyone deserves a wayspot at their house or on their street. That simply isn’t the case for the majority of the world. Most people have to travel some distance to reach a wayspot.
I disagree with the idea that this is somehow political…… what policy agenda is it promoting?
We have a farm in a very rural area. There is no McDonalds, there is no Starbucks, but is it unfair that they aren’t there? No. They are private businesses that want to make a profit and aren’t going to come to a tiny community just to be more “fair” to people in those communities that want those businesses.
It sounds like what you are suggesting is double standards - one set of policies for urban areas and another for more rural area, but Niantic has made it clear that for their business, they don’t want different standards. That is their right, it is their business.
Is it disappointing for those with fewer POIs? Absolutely! But, disappointing is different from unfair or politically motivated.
The facilities ARE there in many cases. They simply aren’t allowed to be used.
It’s not fair because they are specifically and explicitly disallowing rural facilities while allowing urban ones.
The political agenda is urban vs rural living, corporate vs independent. Government vs private. Niantic is pointedly and intentionally making it difficult to play in rural areas even when facilities exist.
You’re right. Remote cattle ranches in Australia have little or no hope of developing enough waypoints to be productive play spaces for Niantic games. I’m not talking about those. I concur that those are lost causes.
There are many places that do have enough potential waypoints… if they were allowed to be used. The population density in these places is comparable to many suburban locations. They simply aren’t incorporated. So there’s no “communal” property. It’s all private. The closest things those places have to a local government is a Home Owners’ Association, (HOA), and those facilities, like neighborhood signs, are also effectively barred.
I may be misunderstanding you a little, but things in communities with HOAs can be eligible. There may be community pools, community BBQ/picnic areas, community club houses, etc.
Just trying to emphasize that things within a gated or private community can be eligible.
As it has already been stated several times, they are not doing this. If I go nominate the Playground/LFL/Statue in my neighbors front yard in my Urban area, it will still be denied because it exists on single family private property. @Leedle95 pointed out criteria applies across the board. Its unfortunate these ‘facilities’ are mostly on single family private property due to it being a rural area but that doesnt make it bypass rejection criteria. Yes, urban areas have playrgounds/LFL/statues not on sfpp because they are urban, but that doesnt mean a double standard should be created especially when it comes to single family private property. Rejection criteria always is taken over acceptance criteria and thats just the way Niantic wants it.
You’re just making up some weird wonderland scenario. Are you telling me that your neighbor down the road has a baseball field on their property that anyone is randomly able to wander up to and use? Or how about the basketball hoop in your driveway? How would you react to someone pulling up and using it while your family is eating dinner or trying to settle down and go to bed?
Because let me tell you, in the rural areas that I am familiar with, this behavior of using facilities that belong to an individual would get you sh0t. But sure, let’s push the narrative that Niantic is being “political” by denying wayspots on someone’s single family property.
With all due respect, I am not missing your point at all. You are in fact asking for rural POIs to be treated differently; in particular you are asking for the SFPRP exclusion to be ignored.
I am not unsympathetic to the desire to be able to play your game of choice where you want, but if that is not how the game is designed and it’s not what the company views as good for it’s business, I see it no differently than not being able to walk down the street in a rural are for your favorite latte because a coffee house wouldn’t survive in a community of 200 people.
Again, disappointing, but fairness and politics don’t come into play.