What’s the source for this preference?
Is it somewhere that normal players will find it?
If it’s a preference, why is it presented as dogma?
1 Like
I really don’t see where the controversy is in suggesting locations should be accurate.
3 Likes
It’s using logic. Where would be a location that makes sense and invites somebody to discover the location?
It’s also right here, somewhere normal Wayfarers can easily find:
Do:
- […]
- Place the pin along the edge or entrance of large objects such as buildings and sports fields. Placement should ideally be at the natural point of approach, such as a gate or door
- […]
6 Likes
I think we need to be careful and discuss these on a case by case basis. As said in several places above, large items being nominated should be done at a logical point of entry or recognizable feature - I am paraphrasing here.
For the church spot in question above I cannot say much because I cannot see it on the map and where the pin is. I will say I prefer an obvious entrance point and not something several feet away from a random sidewall. If I was reviewing it to vote on and it seemed too far away, I’d likely move it to a more fitting spot. But again in this case I know nothing but what the commenter has said.
This situation for our fellow wayfinder in Atlantic City reads differently to me. They nominated 3 things that are closely spaced - not a problem, Lightship has no proximity or density rules. In their case, two of the 3 items were a pair of lions on either side of a driveway. Reviewers (and Niantic) agreed that the second lion was a duplicate of the first one, being a pair they were a single wayspot. The third nomination was a fountain a few feet away from the lions and apparently within the same cell level as the fountain that would cause it not to show up in a specific game (Pokémon Go). The nominator originally appealed the second lion and lost the appeal so brought it to the Forums appeal section. This was addressed by NianticAaron and subsequently moved to the Nomination help area.
This is where the discussion may or may not have bearing in this specific thread. He wanted to switch lions. Essentially move the accepted wayspot from the lion closer to the fountain to the other lion farther from the fountain. So here is ‘The Question’ in that case - should wayfinders be allowed to move an accepted wayspot from one equally eligible spot to another. And this one is a great case study for that!
Returning to the church in this thread, from what is described, it sounds like it was likely moved to a more appropriate spot based on recommendations of logical entrance or landmark. And it was moved to a point in contact with the church and not several feet away.
So ultimately these are two separate use cases and they should not be combined.
5 Likes
The Wayspot should be placed at the natural point of approach. This is documented in the policies as suggested by @Gendgi . @MegaTrainerRed was spot on with their suggestion.
4 Likes
Fine.
A church is still multi-dimensional. Many have multiple points of approach and several entryways.
According to criteria, one may nominate according to preference, and choose which feature to focus upon.
Continue with this over-broadening of the definition of abuse and see how far it gets you…
2 Likes
There have been no changes to the definition of abuse in this regard.
There’s been a long-standing principle of choosing reasonably where to pin a Wayspot with the understanding that accuracy and precision had to allow for technical and human factors.
Over the past months I have noticed an increase and broadening of use of disqualifying terms.
Despite Niantic not having their nomination selection technology under control, staff have called out location abuse where satellite and OSM were not in alignment.
You could allow a reasonable margin of error so users may leave the pin where your apps place it or they can select an object or detail of their own choosing.
Instead, you keep narrowing things down as illustrated in this thread. That constraint is a change whether you acknowledge it or not.
You guys don’t seem to have your act together.
Are you familiar with the term “cut your losses?”
Recall the progression of the discussion. Somebody said
the location were indeed more accurate because in pokemon go we have to sometime place a portal some meters away from their real position because of the cells
And
technically it’s not abuse as long as it is some meters
Whether or not the person intended to be abusive or if collectively some communities accept that, it’s pretty bold and clear that placing the pin away from the Wayspot candidate is abuse. What followed was somebody posting almost verbatim from criteria that that pin “SHOULD” be at the “entrance.” Should. Not Must, Has To, Only Acceptable, etc. There is still plenty of leeway, especially since we are using a 1D dot to represent something in the 3D and sometimes 4D. There are many locations a pin can be accepted but of course the database owner can write in preferences, which is all that statement “should” means, except of course that it cannot be away.
What does this mean for me, and how I’ve seen Niantic handling appeals or edits? If a location is acceptable (corner of the building, middle of the building, steps leading up, back entrance, etc) I’ll usually accept that location - and that matches what I’ve seen Niantic do. If the pin is a few meters away or seems intentionally placed in a location misrepresenting the candidate, I move it to what I believe to be the most accurate location - most often the entrance. I don’t push the pin if it is otherwise acceptable and I’m not looking at maps to see if it will be included in various games.
Please don’t think it’s an overreach. The criteria we’ve linked is not new and not damming of all point selection, just that it can’t be away.
Don’t:
- Don’t place the pin at a location that doesn’t naturally represent what is being nominated
8 Likes
I would love to have a look at it if you have examples. We do not flag abuse unless we can confirm that it is indeed abusive.
That part of the policy has been there for a long time.
4 Likes
Thank you @Gendgi for a wonderful explanation 
4 Likes
A recent example involved Scandinavian meeting-nooks. Unfortunately, I do not remember what the original poster called them.
A dialogue has no losses to cut…
1 Like