I think the message finally got out to most reviewers from the November 2020 AMA that apartment pools are (for some bizarre and unexplained reason) were ineligible, whether from education or from having their own submissions rejected, and so they learned to reject. I hope it does not take another four years for the word to get out that they are now considered eligible.
2 Likes
Thing is, Iâd agree with your overall assessment that aerator fountains could be eligible and think theyâre interesting to view, especially when lit up as some areas do. On a hot day with a slight breeze the mist might carry to the shore. The fact that itâs there primarily for water aeration and circulation doesnât make it visually less intersting to me. But that aerator spring is in the middle of a pond and the immediate ânaturalâ spray doesnât make it more than a few meters around the spring and not close enough to any shore to be âaccessible.â A contained decorative fountain of course can be reached all around, typically.
Iâd also accept a viewing platform or gathering location on the side of a pond that offers a view of the fountain - maybe even with the fountain as the primary focal point. But in this hypothecial the pin would be located at something physically distinct and intended for viewers to gather.
2 Likes
Lovely 
2 Likes
It depends on the Aerator. I am thinking of one in my own neighborhood that was a Poke gym from 2016-2024. The spray easily covered the sidewalk outside which was perpetually wet when it was on. It was finally reported and removed from the game board within the last year.
I agree. I think it will take longer though than need be, because of the wording of the clarification.
You could sit outside the Aerator you pictured too and socialize.
What I am getting at though isnât quite the same thing you are getting at.
Aerator are banned, not merely ineligible. They are deemed unsafe. And are removed from the game boards if they were added before the criteria changed. But if the standard is now pins can be placed outside the water, then they donât need to be banned.
I doubt many communities would approve them as many voters would deem them ineligible as you do. But banned list is different. Wayfarer is full of local differences. Whether itâs neighborhood signs in Florida, or Postboxes in England.
Being banned is different then just ineligible. Ineligible gets voted down by community consensus. Banned gets removed and must be voted down by Niantic decree
Respectfully, I still feel like youâre missing the point that the pool is a location with a large area that includes an edge safely accessible. A POND could be safe, but any water feature (aerator, statue, etc) in the middle of a pond or a pool or any body of water is inherently unsafe. No pool lacks safe access to approach.
2 Likes
Mad props, you prompted me to reread the actual posted quote.
"[quote=âNianticTintino, post:1, topic:12474â]
It is important to choose a pin placement on a side of the pool that respects and does not interfere with the use of the pool, and is a safe location.
[/quote]
If the pin, is in the water at a pool but on the side where you can touch it from the edge without being in the pool, youâre correct.
I read that the first time, as itâs permissible to put the pin outside the pool itself on the side. Which is prompting me to ask what the difference between a pin outside the pool itself, and a pin outside the pond the Aerator is.
IF the pond itself were eligible, the pin may be at the side of the body of water, no different than a pool. If a pool had a water aerator in the middle of the pool, that water feature would be ineligible and placing it on the side of the pool would be a misplacement.
In the pool scenario, the pin should still be touching the pool, however mild wiggle room may exist with the concrete slab or water entry point. But for the pond, there typically isnât the same 1:1 location. The aerator simply exists outside of human touch and the pond is not recognized as an extension of the fountain.
1 Like
The spray is not the aerator, you need to be able to physically get near the point of interest. Iâm guessing you couldnât get near the one youâre talking about, which is why it was removed. So Iâm not sure why youâre bringing it up here. But thanks for proving my point, I guess.
Sure, but the area around the body of water isnât part of the aerator.
The patio around the pool is part of the pool. You can think it isnât all you want, but youâre mistaken.
Aerators arenât âbannedâ they are ineligible because they are unsafe. Period. End. Fin.
Iâm not sure why youâre fighting this so hard, several people have attempted to respectfully point out the errors in your thought process on this.
3 Likes
The area outside the pool is considered to be part of the pool.
The area outside the aerator is the body of water, and the area outside the body of water is something else entirely. Neither of which is part of the aerator.
2 Likes
You know what water feature that sprays water that would be eligible? One in a park you walk through or part of a splash pad you can walk up to. With concrete or otherwise solid ground, not one in the middle of a body of water.
3 Likes
Iâm mostly tilting at windmills a bit, but enjoying a bit of logic exploration.
The point I was musing about is that it the Spray that I am nominating, not the actual machine under the water. Its the spray that makes an âExplore Worthyâ sight.
And if that spray is touchable safely shore, even if the center of it isnât, or the machine that produces it isnât.
Another way of explaining my musing is by looking at the difference of a âFountainâ and an âAeratorâ The fountain itself, is the piece you are nominating. People look at the whole fountain, not just the water coming out.
Hence you have to be able to touch the fountain itself. Where in the aeratorâs case, no one is looking at the object producing the effect, they are only looking at the effect.
Mind you, Iâm not even musing that every aerator spray is eligible, as many are out in the middle of a large enough pound that you canât touch it from shore.
I am merely musing about a rare case, where the spray is touchible from shore.
In short, is the POI the Aerator that produces the spray or is it the Spray?
Eitherway @cyndiepooh showed an example of a type of middle ground.
The effect is temporary, and not eligible.
1 Like
The effect might not be eligible, if people donât like the idea of the effect being whats nominated as opposed to the object creating the effect. Totally grant ya that.
However, youâre going to have to explain âTemporaryâ and why it would apply. Itâs a different context that I tend to think of that word in nominations.
The water that leaves the fountain flies up into the air and then falls into the water. Its existence for someone to âtouchâ as you put it is by its very definition, temporary. The only thing permanent about the water is the device that sprays it up into the air to begin with.
Hello! First time posting. Iâm about to be able to submit PoIs, but Iâm hesitating quite a lot as Iâve read that some users have had issues with unintended âabuseâ, and Iâm having a bit of language barrier issue here.
As a bit of context: Iâm also from Spain, I live in a heavily touristic city near Barcelona. All PoIs in my city are either in the promenade or 2 km away in the city center, leaving a big empty void in the middle.
The area were I live are either PRP/single family houses or apartment buildings. Most of the latter have what I think would be valid PoIs: swimming pool, swings, basketall basket, etc. This PoIs usage is restricted to the residents of such apartment building, which range from 24 to 36 different apartments.
Iâve assumed that the clarifications are in British, in which âApartment Complexâ is a synonim to âApartment Buildingâ, which is what we have here. Upon further investigation, Iâve found out that American english defines âApartment Complexâ as a âGroup of buildingsâ. Which would not make my PoIs be valid.
Any clarification on that?
1 Like
Have you checked out Criteria Clarification Collection ? I think it makes a lot of the questions you asked clear. The Private Property rejection only applies to SFPRP (Single Family Private Residential Property) so common areas are eligible.
I am going to tag @MegaTrainerRed who is also from Spain
2 Likes
@cyndiepooh Thank you, I was just reading their message 
@Eweer Hola! No entiendo muy bien tu problema, te refieres a piscinas de urbanizaciones o a otro tipo? Si es asà siéntete libre de comunicarte conmigo en español ^^
3 Likes
Woah, that was such a quick answer haha. Yes, Iâve ended up in this thread due to that topic and replied to âMegaTrainerRedâ (thatâs the reason of the: âIâm also from Spainâ haha).
Thanks for the tag!
No voy a mentir, me estå costando incluso explicarlo en español haha. A ver si lo consigo.
BĂĄsicamente me refiero al tĂpico âApartamento de veraneoâ. Un edificio con mĂșltiples apartamentos, normalmente muy pequeños, a muy corta distancia de la playa y que tienen una zona comunitaria para los inquilinos. Estos inquilinos normalmente alquilan (o no, si lo tienen en propiedad) el apartamento durante los meses de Junio ~ Septiembre, aunque tambiĂ©n estamos aquellos que vivimos aquĂ durante todo el año.
ÂżHay alguna forma de contactarte por privado para poderte mandar una foto (por motivos de privacidad, prefiero no mandar donde vivo en pĂșblico)? Una imagen vale mĂĄs que mil palabras, sobre todo cuando no me sĂ© explicar 