Neighborhood Signs

Review Support
101

I still maintain that the only reason people are in favor of these is some version of the “need more stops” mentality.

When you think about any other cases in which a sign can be eligible, it’s because of what it represents. For a neighborhood, sure there may be a great sense of community for those who live there but that doesn’t mean that there is one particular place in which it’s great to be social that the sign alone represents. Perhaps there is a gazebo/pavilion, a pool, a playground, a clubhouse, a tennis or basketball court, maybe all of the above! And those places are all perfectly eligible in part because they are places in which the social culture of the neighborhood is built and strengthened. But the sign itself does none of this.

Compare this to a restaurant or a church, other locations for which the sign is frequently the focus of the nomination photo. Is it the sign itself that matters? Not in the slightest, the nomination is eligible only because of that which it represents.

Then think of other types of signs which are eligible, such as historic or natural information plaques, storywalks, etc. These types of signs have detailed information that is useful in some way to understanding an area whether it’s the people, places, plants, or something else that used to be or still are nearby. But a neighborhood sign? It’s barely any more informational then a streetsign. Is it useful for finding your way? Yes. Does that cause it to clear the bar for eligibility? No. And I certainly don’t think that multiple signs for the same neighborhood should be acceptable. That’s just low effort spam.

Maybe this helps some of the ardent supporters understand why so many of us are not in favor of these.

14 Likes
102

While I tend to lean toward trying to find a reason to accept them, I still look first for an easy reason to reject (like in a median) or unsafe for pedestrians.

I do thumbs up some as they are nice spots when I’m out walking and provide something for players living in subdivisions vs city. I agree with you; the value is more in getting more waypoints into games. Which isn’t Niantic’s motive but is players.

While I may have approved the 1st waypoint here, I definitely wouldn’t approve the 2nd that is across the street. That doesn’t provide any more value to the community.

I think of it like disc golf. Sure, the first sign lets you know where you are and that you are about to explore the XYZ neighborhood. However, two to four signs at an intersection with the same community name are duplicative, and only one provides any value.

Long story long, I agree that multiple signs are low-effort spam. But I still like one sign per neighborhood for exploration reasons, especially if it has anything remarkable about it (e.g., a nice rock display, flowers, etc.). The sign above was about as boring as boring can get, so that would be a tougher accept without Niantic’s clarification.

103

I get why people are asking for clearer guidance from Niantic on neighborhood signs—it would absolutely help bring more consistency to reviews. That said, I want to play devil’s advocate for a moment and ask folks to consider Niantic’s actions as part of the guidance we already have.

Take the addition of PokéStops and Gyms at Walmarts. That was a deliberate move to make the game more accessible, especially in areas with fewer play locations. If that doesn’t show intent to grow the network, I’m not sure what does.

And let’s be honest—Walmart is about as generic and visually indistinct as it gets. No one is out there “exploring” the frozen foods aisle. Yet those locations were added in bulk because they are consistent, accessible, and easy to roll out at scale.

Now compare that to walking along a sidewalk that passes through multiple neighborhoods. That’s a form of exploration too—arguably a more meaningful and personal one. A well-designed neighborhood entrance sign can have local character, historical value, or artistic features that a big-box store simply doesn’t.

So while I fully support asking for more specific guidance from Niantic, I also hope reviewers will take recent developer actions into account when evaluating submissions. Just because something hasn’t been spelled out doesn’t mean it isn’t encouraged.

3 Likes
104

This is because Walmart paid to put them there.

3 Likes
105

Totally fair to assume there was a financial component to the Walmart partnership—Pokémon GO gift cards were part of the rollout, after all. But I think it’s important we don’t ignore the explicitly stated reason for the change, which was to improve PokéStop and Gym availability for more players.

Here’s what Niantic said in their announcement:

“Starting October 20, all Walmart Supercenters across the United States will have more PokéStops and Gyms! With 90 percent of Americans living within about 10 miles of a Walmart store, the added PokéStops will improve availability for your Pokémon GO adventures…”

So yes, there was likely a commercial incentive, but Niantic didn’t frame the update only in terms of monetization. They led with the accessibility angle. It was a move meant to expand coverage, and that’s a meaningful signal when we’re trying to understand how they view location quality and distribution.

I just hope we don’t completely dismiss the explicitly stated purpose of increasing access just because there may have also been a financial reason behind it. Both can be true.

Pokémon GO and Walmart partner to bring PokéStops and adventure to Walmart stores!

1 Like
106

But they still want you to GO to the Walmart stores, not stay in your neighborhood.

107

NIantic are unlikely to state “We are adding loads of stops at Walmarts. We couldn’t care less what it does to gameplay as they have given us a massive sack of cash”…

108

I’m still pretty new to the Pokémon GO community and Wayfarer, but I’ve been an active user of suburban spaces for decades—as a runner (before three back surgeries), and now walking with my kids or just getting outside to reset. These spaces—sidewalks, neighborhood paths, small park cut-throughs—are where I’ve always explored, exercised, and socialized. Interestingly, those are the same three themes Niantic highlights in their inclusion criteria.

I understand the point that the Walmart partnership likely had a business angle. But Niantic also explicitly stated that one of their goals was improving accessibility. I don’t think we have to choose between the commercial and the community-facing reasons—both can be true. What stood out to me was that they saw value in placing stops where people already are.

To that end, I chose to share a Strava heatmap, because I suspect many folks don’t realize just how heavily suburban sidewalks and routes are used. These are vibrant spaces of daily movement, not just in-between zones. And while a neighborhood sign may not seem exciting at first glance, it can often represent a hub of activity for the people living around it.

Just offering this as another angle—I’m really enjoying learning from everyone’s perspectives here and appreciate how much thought goes into these conversations.

image
image1417×848 160 KB

1 Like
109

Unfortunately, there has to be some limits. I think anything could be twisted to fit 1 of the big three criteria.

Short story, when I was a lad doing a paper round I used to stop and chat to and old gent who would walk up to a roundabout (traffic), get himself sat on a low wall and waste an hour looking for “Classic” cars or other vehicles rare for the area.

He had got some excercise, explored rarer cars and socialised by chatting with me (and probably others).

Don’t think I would get the wall past the reviewers :frowning:

110

I’ve taken time to review Niantic’s clarification posts on trail markers, survey markers, private property, and generic businesses, since there isn’t a specific category for neighborhood markers and I wanted to offer a brief perspective that ties them together.

Across all these categories, one consistent theme stands out:

Eligibility depends more on context, function, and community relevance than on visual uniqueness alone.

Based on Niantic’s own words:

  • Trail markers can be eligible even if they aren’t visually exciting—what matters is their function on a route.
  • Survey markers may qualify if they’re in interesting locations or support exploration, even when mass-produced.
  • Private property guidance clearly allows for eligibility in shared or communal spaces—not everything in a neighborhood is private.
  • Generic businesses can be eligible if they serve as local hubs, especially in suburban or rural areas.

Applying this to neighborhood signs:

If a neighborhood sign is:

  • Not located on private single-family residential property
  • Safely accessible to pedestrians
  • Marking a real, named neighborhood that people move through or gather around

…then it may support Niantic’s inclusion goals of exploration, exercise, and social connection—even if it appears generic.

I’m not suggesting all signs should be accepted automatically. But the idea that all neighborhood signs—simply because they look generic—should be automatically rejected doesn’t seem to align with Niantic’s broader criteria.

3 Likes
111

The function of a builder’s neighborhood sign is to identify the real estate. This is nothing more than a billboard in most cases.

112

You make some good points, I could start loads of arguments here with eligible nominations that personally I beleive fail on various criteria, You learn what is and isn’t eligible reading the forums, reviewing and your successes and fails nominating.

Sometimes you have to just have to walk away and try something else.

113

Thanks so much to both of you for taking the time to respond. I really appreciate the space to think this through together.

@SlimboyFat71 – I completely agree with you that part of the learning curve comes from experience—nominating, failing, succeeding, and reading the forum. I’ve already learned a lot from this thread alone. And I respect the idea that sometimes, you just have to walk away. That said, I also think it’s worth talking through edge cases like this, because shared understanding evolves when we challenge defaults.

@cyndiepooh – I hear your point about neighborhood signs functioning as real estate branding. I think there’s definitely a range of signs that do serve that purpose and wouldn’t be eligible—temporary signs, banners, or anything that looks like an active sales tool.

But the signs I’m referring to aren’t marketing billboards. They’re usually brick or stone structures, often in place for decades, and more permanent than things we regularly consider eligible (like Little Free Libraries or trail posts). These aren’t sales tools—they’re landmark features that mark transitions between neighborhoods, much like a trail marker defines a path or boundary.

And that leads to something I’ve been thinking about a lot in this thread—the difference between the official criteria and the unspoken rules that develop in the community.

As James Paul Gee puts it, there’s the (g)ame (the literal rules) and the (G)ame (the social practices around the rules). I think some of what’s happening here reflects that. Officially, Niantic hasn’t said “all neighborhood signs are ineligible”—but there’s a widespread practice of rejecting them automatically, often based on personal interpretation rather than published guidance.

That’s all I was hoping to explore here: not to argue that all neighborhood signs should be approved, but to challenge the idea that they should all be dismissed without review, especially when some meet the criteria of being safely accessible, not on private property, and part of a meaningful community boundary.

Thanks again for engaging. I’m not trying to start an argument—I’m just hoping we can keep evolving the shared understanding of what exploration looks like in different kinds of spaces.

2 Likes
114

Some of us are stubborn and keep trying. That’s me I’m the problem.
I’ve had things accepted after 3 or 4 declines.

image
image339×330 28.7 KB

2 Likes
115

Criteria does change over time so maybe in the future…

Don’t think keeping the conversation going constantly will help, maybe puts some people off that are on your side.

Give it 6 months, someone else will ressurect this thread or start another.

Not being local (UK) we don’t tend to have “Estate” signs, new builds may have the temporary “adverts” as Cyndi states. Don’t even think the estate names are official, they just get named after the main road.

Estate near us is known as “Greystones” but most still call it the New Estate, it was built around 1980… Even people aged around 20 still call it New Estate :slight_smile: 2 paths connect it to us. “New Path” and “Old Path”, they are approx 40 / 45 years old…

Although most Villages have now spread and merged in to neighbouring villages / towns we still have border markers for the Villages. Large boulder, Stone plinth, wooden structures some with planters built in holding the Village Name sign. These do tend to be accepted but they are not placed to help sell new builds.

1 Like
116

It might surprise you to know that I have submitted and accepted neighborhood signs when they met criteria - when it qualifies as art, or has a built in area to be social, or is historically important.

The builders put the signs there to denote the real estate for sale. The signs normally reflect the priciness of the neighborhood. That is not part of criteria. We have these large stone signs at every street here.

None of us got together and said, “We are not going to accept neighborhood signs.” They simply do not meet the criteria of a great place to exercise, explore, or be social. That is “published guidance.”

It would be impossible for Niantic or Scopely or the Wayfarer team to make a clarification for every single thing every explorer might try to submit. But I do wish Wayfarer staff would just stop this sign debate with a clarification. Otherwise, it will just go round and round. With Wayfarers confused when one is rejected and a similar one is accepted.

117

You and I think a lot alike about this subject.

1 Like
118

this is not criteria

3 Likes
119

When I have time, I’ll make a separate post that synthesizes my thoughts in one place. That post will also serve to ensure no one feels personally singled out—because that’s absolutely not my intent.

I’ve been reading through the clarifying statements Niantic has made, including those in the Criteria Clarification Collection,(About the Criteria Clarification Collection category), to develop many of my thoughts. Niantic has publicly expressed a desire for more accessibility and inclusion in what qualifies as a Wayspot, which I think is important context for this conversation - independent of implied financial motivations.

To clarify: I never said a particular person doesn’t accept signs. What I said is that I repeatedly see people on this forum stating that neighborhood signs are categorically not acceptable. This message comes up often, and it seems to be a persistent point of confusion—as you yourself have reiterated.

If 25–33% of nominations are for neighborhood signs (a percentage I’ve seen referenced here, though I acknowledge I don’t have concrete data to verify this), then it suggests a statistically significant number of submitters believe these signs meet the eligibility criteria. And anecdotally, that percentage has tracked pretty closely with what I’ve seen in my own recent reviews. That volume of submissions alone is worth discussing—not automatically dismissing.

If you’re not someone who categorically rejects neighborhood signs, then none of what I’m saying is directed at you.

To the people who are rejecting all neighborhood signs outright, that’s obviously your prerogative. Niantic seems to leave room for personal judgment in how reviewers apply the criteria. If some people feel justified in arguing that neighborhood signs should always be rejected, then it’s equally valid for others to argue that they should not be categorically dismissed, which is what I believe.

Again, my intention was never to single you out personally, and I’m not sure why my confusion around this topic has landed with you in that way.

120

I agree however, there are some details that were not addressed.

On trailmarkers while true that it doesn’t have to be visually interesting, the existence of a definite exercise trail seems to define its eligibility.

While the neighborhood sign can become a visual identifier for strava runs, a close association can be said for directional markers which:

Happenstance exercise or socialization do not resonate well with being a great places for those two. One can socialize on the street, one can visually identify a street by its street sign, sure. The neighborhood is seen as a place for residence, not active living/exercise/socialization. The neighborhood is not implicitly a place to socialize although there can be amenities that fit this bill (clubhouses, athletics field, etc.).

I’m also at the stance that neighborhood signs shouldn’t be an automatic rejection. On the other side of the coin, most neighborhood sign submissions lack the specific context on how it meets eligibility for being a great place to exercise, socialize, or explore.

I do think that is where the discrepancy shows. Each specific object is different, these differences may have merits one object has that similar ones don’t. When not put into context, the usual/common context is assumed. In the case of these signs without any more details from the submitter, reviewers are left to assume the common context: they are signs directing people of this particular neighborhood.

3 Likes