Catching up on this topic……
Let’s try to not use phrases such as Gatekeeper. It’s one I avoid as it can have negative undertones to it. It’s not necessary.
The topic of these “neighbourhood signs or markers” is an interesting one. There are large global differences in the form they take so it’s really quite hard to define.
If I strip this back further even defining neighbourhood has no global clarity.
So I tend to go back to basics….
And think about these aspects ready for answering the actual questions.
What is its function meant to be
What is it physically like
Where is it.
So treating it as specific instance each time. They are not automatically eligible or ineligible. Each will involve a judgement call as you answer the questions.
My understanding of the situations raised here are specifically around entrances to specific housing developments. They are a sign to indicate where you are. Bigger than a conventional street sign but that’s the function. To me that is not a function that makes it eligible.
What does it look like? Does it stand out as special? Would it be an interesting place to look at.? This is then about assessing if it is artistic or unusual in some way. This is a judgement call no hard and fast rules.
Is it a place where people are meant to socialise. Again this may vary. Are there some benches integrated into it where people could meet and sit and chat? Should the benches be the focus of the nomination then and not the sign? Is it clear from the landscaping that people have space to be there and be safe. A large grassed area would be ok but if everything in front of it is a substantial flower bed then it’s meant to be a place you stand at.
So most that I have seen don’t get a positive response but sometimes there are ones that do.
There does seem to be a degree of trying to make a square peg fit in a round hole at times.
We review as a community and get to decide if we think it is a great place to exercise, explore or socialize.
I may not think an entry sign makes sense as a meeting point, yet others might meet there for various purposes.
I’ve also observed some communities that seasonal decorate entry signs. Those can be great places to explore and see the new displays. It would be easy to write those off as “generic” without the local knowledge.
I echo that there are specific merits and demerits for each one. I’d like to emphasize “some” and “can” too.
Preferably the submitter has written arguments to explain how it meets eligibility, especially when the object in question is not inherently echoing how it is eligible. Also so the local knowledge for this one specific instance submitted is made known.
Reminder please that we are I am talking about the specific featured sign, with its description: “Welcome to the community”.
I have submitted neighborhood signs with art or historical value, and I approved one the other day with benches and a patio that was clearly an area designed to be social.
My point is that neighborhood signs do not inherently meet criteria. And the featured one should not be featured.
100% we are discussing nuance. I believe Neighborhood/Community entry signs are not a binary decision. Great to socialize could mean many things and our ideas can vary in what great looks like.
While providing criteria updates is a useful tool, making a Yes/No decision could eliminate the need for reviewer as eMiLee could eventually learn to do that.
I would argue that while this particular nomination may not be interesting, it does at least meet the “great place to explore”. If you were a resident of that neighborhood and you were giving directions to somone coming to visit you would probably say something like “make a left turn at the Madden West entry marker”.
As far as it’s eligibleity or not in particular, I would need way more context, how far is it from SFPRP? Is there seperation from SFPRP? Can I walk up to it?
To your point about the showcase Maybe a change to the showcase is needed to allow for eMiLy approved spots to be shown. What I have surmised from observation is that the showcase is typically a PoI voted on by the community that has reached a high score of agreements. Very rarely is the showcase spotlighting something that has had a lot of thumbs down. So maybe the locals have spoken.
While I disagree with the first part, I do love the suggestion that ML decisions should be the featured Wayspots. ML accepts the clearly eligible nominations - they even told us that.
If the descriptions on these types of nominations tells us a bit of the history of the neighborhood, who the principal architects were (if applicable or interesting), or why this particular neighborhood is unique, I’m all in. There is a place locally to me that holds a farmer’s market at one of these signs on the weekends (I don’t think it’s a waypoint though to be honest), so to me, that would meet criteria if the description discusses it.
I just don’t think there is a way to categorically say these signs are not eligible, or don’t meet criteria in a way that can be applied consistently.
Memorial benchesNeighborhood signs can only be eligible under the criteria for exploration if they are dedicated to a notable figure or community and that notability is described in the nomination. Mass produced memorial benchesneighborhood signs dedicated to friends and familyhousing complexes are not eligible unless the nominator provides evidence of the individual’s importance to the community. Just stating that someonea place was important to the community is inadequate.
If Niantic weighs in on this and says “We stand by featuring this on the Showcase” or “These make excellent Wayspots” or something like that, then I have 80 available nominations I can put to use very quickly.
My views on neighborhood signs are well known: I don’t think most are DESTINATIONS for socialization or exploration or even exercise, at least not to a higher degree than a generic intersection or road sign. They’re not ineligible, but rarely (for me) do they rise to the level of acceptability, unless they’re artistic or have other features like the benches mentioned above. I’d never classify them as categorically acceptable as a whole, because of course we’re told to review holistically. Regardless, I do examine each one I see as closely as any other nomination, just to see if the submitter has proven their case for inclusion.
But, my point is liking less “clarifications” hyperfocused on one particular object rather than being able to be interpretted across multiple types of candidates.
“We” get a “neighborhood sign” clarification and next week people start asking for a “subdivision sign,” etc. Ok, those two are similar enough, but I think you know what I mean.
And I would add that a meeting point (let’s gather at the sign) is not the same as a great place to socialize. A place to socialize is where people would hang out together for some period of time and most of the neighborhood signs I see nominated are not places where people gather to socialize. They might meet there before going on a walk, but that isn’t the eligibility criterion.
Aww, it’s fun to see one’s own candidates on the showcase! Since I’m an Ingress-only submitter for the most part, most Pokemon Go players never see my name on the Wayspots I create. My name does carry over on the Showcase, though, so that’s where my efforts get recognized. It’s a nice ego boost! My Campfire chat has a section where area members can post what’s on their local showcase so we can recognize and recruit new Wayfinders as well as celebrate the victories of our current members. Showcases matter!
