I’m quite new to Wayfarer and I’m still trying to understand the criteria properly, so I’d really appreciate some guidance.
I recently submitted a nomination for a drinking fountain located inside a public park. The nomination was automatically rejected during Niantic’s automated review process, and I would like to understand what may have caused it.
I’m not trying to complain about the decision; I’m mainly trying to learn so I can submit better nominations in the future.
The nomination was:
Title: Fuente del parque Location: Public park in Cobeja, Toledo, Spain Description: Drinking water fountain located in the park, useful for visitors to hydrate and rest. Supporting information: The fountain is inside a public park with safe pedestrian access.
In order to be accepted, a wayspot has to not fail any of the rejection criteria
it has to be safely accessible to pedestrians
it can’t be on school grounds, single-family private residential property, farmland
it has to exist at the location given
it has to have a reasonably accurate title and description
the photo cannot contain licence plates, identifiable people, unnecessary animals
It also has to meet one of the key criteria
Exploration
Exercise
Social
Something can pass all the rejection reasons but still not be eligible because it simply isn’t meeting criteria. Please have a look at these for understanding what makes a good wayspot.
If you think this meets criteria, can you explain how it meets Exploration, Exercise or Social? That should always be the first thought when seeing something you are considering submitting.
Hi, welcome to the forum! As the criteria discussion above hints at, this looks more like generic infrastructure than an object people would go out of their way to explore. This is most likely the reason.
For what it’s worth, I’m not sure if it’s correctly pinned because the line map doesn’t show the park super well, but if you are looking for it to appear as a Pokéstop it would not have been eligible to appear as one anyway because of Pokémon GO’s inclusion rules.
First of all, thank you very much for the warm welcome and for the constructive comments.
I’m not sure if you had time to look at the nomination I attached, because from my point of view it seemed to meet most of the points you mentioned.
That said, it looks like the issue may be closer to what @Xenopus explained. My question was more about that specific point.
I understand the basic “technical” requirements for submitting a Wayspot, and I have already checked the relevant links and criteria. What I’m still struggling to understand is where the line is drawn when deciding whether something can be considered “interesting” or “eligible” enough.
For example, in my way of seeing it, if someone is walking through a small town — in this case, my own town — a public drinking fountain inside a park feels like something useful and worth considering as part of a walking route. However, I understand that this may not be enough under Wayfarer criteria.
So my real question is: what kind of things should I actually be looking for and proposing? What do reviewers usually value the most when judging nominations?
In a small village like mine, there are usually not endless options, so I would really like to understand better what makes a nomination strong enough.
Sorry if this is not the right place to ask, and apologies for the long message.
Something being useful and interesting does not mean it is necessary eligible to be a wayspot. Certainly, something being useful is not sufficient. Pedestrian crossings are useful (but definitely not eligible as wayspots)!
Think about Social, Exploration and Exercise first. Consider whether the option you are considering meets one of these key criteria.
Is it something that intentionally encourages being Social. Simply being somewhere you can be social is not sufficient.
Is it something you would intentionally Explore. Simply being somewhere where you can go is not sufficient.
Is it something that intentionally encourages Exercise. Simply being somewhere you can exercise is not sufficient.
I think some of the comments are giving general advice, and I genuinely appreciate that, but I’m not sure if everyone has actually looked at the specific nomination I attached in my original post.
I’m attaching this screenshot from the guidance that was shared here:
“Fountains, sculptures or murals at small businesses, as long as they are unique and not mass produced.”
As shown in the guidance itself, fountains are mentioned as something that may be worth considering, depending on the case.
My nomination did not even pass the automated review stage, which is why I was asking about this specific example rather than only about general nomination advice.
I completely understand that not every fountain is automatically eligible, and I’m not saying that my nomination must be accepted. What I’m trying to understand is why this specific nomination would be rejected automatically before even reaching normal review, especially when fountains are mentioned in the guidance as potentially valid points of interest.
Again, I really appreciate the proactive and helpful comments. I would just like the feedback to be based as much as possible on the nomination I actually submitted in my initial post.
That isn’t a fountain in the way that guidance means. The word “fountain” is overloaded here.
In the guidance, fountain means a decorative feature that is intended for people to enjoy looking at.
This is not that sort of fountain. It is a drinking fountain that happens to use the same word due to the way in which it works, but it is definitely not something that people enjoy looking at.
