- Location, place, or object is temporary, or highly unlikely to be permanent
I propose the Permanent Criteria Mitigation as follows to increase Wayspot on the Niantic map more and more.
- Permanent Criteria Mitigation
- Set up a new form to enter the exhibition end date when nominating temporary objects or places
- If 2 is ACCEPTED, build a system that automatically removes Wayspot at the same time as the first set end date
This is a proposal to increase Wayspot more legally by minimizing human resources.
Wayfarer has been highly regarded for its history and stone monuments due to the strong influence of OPR’s Exploration Criteria. Now that I have separated the map from Ingress, I would like to register hotspots around the world as Wayspot on the map more freely and promote interesting places to various people. An example of a specific temporary hotspot is EXPO2025, which is currently being held in Osaka Prefecture, Japan until October 13, 2025. For example, there are 42 artistic type A (original pavilions) overseas pavilions designed by world-class architects. By making them Wayspot, I think it would be very fun for me and my friends if we could give them to them as Pokémon GO gifts.
What do you think of this proposal?
24 Likes
How wonderful it would be to register these pavilions as Wayspot!
1 Like
Originally, I hate the ambiguity of Criteria that seeks permanence. Everything in this world is always changing, and one day it will decay. Is temporary within a week? Is it within half a year? Within a few years? How many years is it considered permanent? They are too vague. The ambiguous Criteria confuses people. The problem will be solved if it is clarified or abolished/relaxed.
6 Likes
The likelihood of permanence seems to be the guiding principle. That is not accounting for accidental, incidental, or other unintended cause for destruction/decay. IMO the ambiguity is set to accommodate different cultures at different rates of development. A megacity can undergo tons of redevelopment while a town can barely get improvements in a decade.
That said, your proposal for temporary wayspots seem to function akin to some sponsorships, the motivation in doing so seems to be only for one game too. However, submissions of such seem to come from the event organizers/companies rather than the community. How will the submission and voting be done?
The timeline for your example’s acceptance seem to fall short of its existence. It may take the length of the event to be reviewed and decided if it goes into regular community reviewing. This is why I see the permanence of wayspots as part of criteria rather than being grandfather by OPR. One also has to wonder why OPR set permanence as criteria when the same proposal can also be utilized in Ingress. A highly dynamic map of portals can add a new dimension for strategy.
Having these temporary wayspots seem to increase the workload on the team’s side too. The concept sounds fun, unlikely to be implemented but we are welcome to dream.
2 Likes
Fwiw, I can see this being implemented via PGO’s CA Program, Community Campsites seem to be promising. Let’s hope more details will be coming soon.
3 Likes
I like the idea of having expo to be sponsored wayspot but i guess scopely want to use them for their own purposes. Some pokemon event ald have sponsored wayspot. I guess community ambassdor are doing this.
Thank you for allowing me to dream. I believe in Scopely’s development capabilities 
I believe that if we can build a system that automatically rejects the map when the end date set by nomination is reached during the review period, human resources will not be needed. (If only we could build such a dream-like map system.)
Human resources is still needed to put the event in calender.
1 Like
I’m sorry for my poor English. I don’t understand 100% of your opinions.
There has been a proposal in the past that you want a form to enter the URL at the time of nomination. For things that have a similar due date, if the submitter can register the end date at the time of nomination, if you build a system that works well, you can increase the number of Wayspot more and get an interesting experience.
I’m proposing it in the long run. I think it can’t be helped even if the criteria and system changes are not made in time for the nomination of EXPO2025 Wayspot listed in this example. But I want to change something new!
This is exactly what I was thinking!
Suppose the nominations will come directly from Niantic or AI, it is prone to the event/company suing (NAL) for unauthorized use of the events/paraphernalia? How will they choose and pick which event would be included (and non-infringing).
Suppose it is still community submitted, the same timeframe of decisions is likely to occur with the added workload of verifying the end dates provided is true. And like the current submissions, some details provided by a player may be sketchy, overhyped, or outright untrue.
2 Likes
That’s the thing. For this system to work well, someone also has to verify each detail included if untrue or not. We are still resolving the current details included in each review, a deadline proposed to verify is additional workload.
1 Like
If the system is updated, will there be people who shorten the period by filling in the end date of the lie instead of lying that “this nomination is permanent” even though it is automatically removed? Frauds are always everywhere. All you have to do is punish those who cheat.
I think that now that the bag log of reviews has decreased, it is an opportunity to register the hotspot as Wayspot.
We have already (at least on Pokémon Go) Wayspots that are only available during certain times (parks that have restrictions on etc.) so I suppose this just extends it to certain days/months.
In the case of those parks, the Wayspot stays on the map and just can’t be interacted with. Do you think this would work for ones that are only up at certain points of the year?
1 Like
This decision seems to depend on how the proposed system will be made. What I see is another demotivation to review if it will still be up to reviewers to input the start and end dates given little or unverifiable info by the submitter.
It is another example. The problem is that the limited-time Pokémon posts in Yokohama have been nominated many times. And someone will accept. Yes, because it’s a very popular place.
https://www.welcome.city.yokohama.jp/blog/detail.php?blog_id=151#
Aside from that, I think there are many very attractive places in the world for a limited time. Wouldn’t it be a good idea to review the old Rejection Criteria and incorporate a new mechanism?
I imagine that it is easier to review items with a fixed expiration date than to review items with an unknown installation date. This is because things that have a fixed expiration date are often listed on official websites.
For example, no one knows who installed the Jizo statues that are common in Japan, when they were placed, and how long they will be in place, and there is no official website.
I welcome new mechanisms. With new mechanisms, however, is a streamlined methodology so we do not fall into new problems whilst existing ones are unresolved.
We can dream. To put this into reality, IMO we’ll need the incentive for each party involved (players, the team, the event/project management) to participate. You’ve highlighted the incentive for players. Reviewers will be impacted negatively. What of the other parties?
3 Likes
Ah, that’s a problem. Uncontrollable PokéStops are very annoying. If they don’t disappear, other places won’t become new PokéStops.
It was a pleasure to hear your input. I would love to hear from the newly formed Scopely Wayfarer team and everyone else 
As I stated in the OP, the accountability lies with the nominator, just like any other item. Reviewers do not type. (It may just be that the translation is not working. If this reply doesn’t make sense, please ignore this POST)
