All these dog park signs were recently removed and I would like them restored. Dog parks clearly meet the eligibility criteria. They are great places to exercise by walking with your dog, and also great places to socialize with other dog owners and let your dogs play together. Thatâs two out of the big three.
Yes, the signs are clearly mass-produced. But that is not a problem. As can be seen here in the acceptance criteria (Niantic Wayfarer), an object that placemarks an area is also an acceptable submission. The actual topic of submission is the dog parks in this case. The mass-produced sign is simply the best way to represent them in a single photo, since a picture of a grassy field is definitely not going to get approved by reviewers. So therefore these submissions should not be judged based on the signs, but what the signs represent: unique and individual dog parks, which, as mentioned before, are great places to exercise and socialize. Itâs the exact same logic as mass-produced trail markers. You donât judge them on the markers, but on the trail the markers represent.
What is an âoff leash markerâ if not a place a dog owner actively seeks out for a green space to exercise with their dog?
Can you clarify if all such signage are now âcategorically ineligible Wayforum criteriaâ or do you just mean these specific examples are ineligible?
These signs are located at the entrance to fenced-off areas where you can safely let your dog off its leash AKA a âdog parkâ.
The point of the submission is not the sign itself. Itâs the dog park. The sign is simply the best way to represent that in a photo. If you want me to submit pictures of a fenced-off patch of grass instead, Iâll do so, but I can guarantee you right now that itâll get rejected instantly for either ânatural featureâ, âlive animalâ or people being in the photo.
Itâs the exact same reason why people submit photos of mass-produced trail markers instead of photos of the sidewalk or some dirt road.
Besides, I thought we were encouraged to take pictures of signs to represent parks/lakes/beaches/natural features if theyâre present.
âMarkersâ serve as proxies for conceptual things that might otherwise be difficult to represent or prove photographically.
Wayfarers are generally instructed to use their own judgement as to whether the underlying concept is real, accurately placed, and meets core criteria. We seem to do a fairly good job at this. Thus, âplease-pick-up-wasteâ signs are normally rejected as generic infrastructure, unless they are the sole thing that ear-marks a conceptually valid location (such as an otherwise sign-less park).
In the OPâs case, each of these signs appears to be the only easily photographed thing that represents a special type of enclosed space dedicated to off-leash dog play.
What makes this activity ineligible for Wayfarer? I find it more useful/interesting than any kind of ballpark or sports field.
Is there anything in the published criteria to support your position?
If all of Wayfarer simply boils down to âdo whatever @NianticAaron saysâ, I donât think very many other people will have any interest in playing with you.
Most dog parks here only have one entrance but that one is so large that it has multiple. None of them is labeled as the âmainâ entrance so theyâre all equally notable.
The signs Iâve seen are all identical. Shouldnât be an issue in the slightest since itâs not about the signs themselves but what they represent.
Wayfarer isnât âDo whatever NianticAaron saysâ itâs do whatever Niantic says. Itâs their map, weâre just curating it and we need to curate it according to their rules.
We absolutely have the right to question their rules in an attempt to have them updated or changed if we donât agree with them, or to ask for further clarification on rules that might be vague or confusing. However, we need to do it respectfully.
This is precisely why we require their rules to be made clear.
Respect is a two-way street. If Nianticâs responses tied back to core criteria it would go a long way towards establishing coherent policy.
Cite a previous finding, expand upon it, or explain where we can see its natural limits.
Certainly, less effort is required to simply tag things as ânormalâ items, but this practice quickly devolves into self-contradictory nonsense: That is just a normal scenic overlook/artwork/church/playground. Sometimes we require a proxy in the form of a trail-marker or sign.
Arenât those precisely the things that we are meant to locate and catalog?
@Glawhantojar (canât reply directly to your post for some reason)
See, hereâs the thing. @NianticLC originally said these wayspots should be restored. And then @NianticAaron seemingly overrules LC and edits LCâs post to say what it currently does. So we have two Niantic employees with two opposing opinions. What does âNianticâ say then? They canât both be right. One of the two has to be wrong, and if you logically interpret the criteria that we can all read on the website, as @eneeoh and I have done in several posts in this thread, itâs Aaron. And I am being perfectly respectful about this, but as @eneeoh so eloquently said, respect is a two-way street, and I expect to be shown at least enough respect to have my points adressed rather than ignored.
And as you appear to be a wayfarer of some esteem, I am interested in your interpretation of these wayspots. How would you rate a large fenced-off area intended for walking/playing with your dog (colloquially known as a dog park) that uses a sign as representation for ease of photography and as a clear anchor point for the wayspot location?
I donât see where NianticLC said they should be restored, was that on a separate thread? Because on this one they said:
I never said you werenât, when others say things likeâŚ
⌠it can come off as disrespectful, which is what I was referring to.
Iâm not a fan of the pictures, a main photo of the entrance to the park itself with the sign in it would probably serve the Wayspots better.
The bunch around that one large park looks more like a simple entrances to a forested area with a sign saying pick up after your dog⌠I canât really tell.
If weâre being honest, all of the signs look pretty much the same, so itâs possible they were interpreted as generic âwatch after your dogâ signs and not specific signs marking the locations as actual dog parks. All of the ones around that one park, I would likely not accept. Large areas with âdog signsâ arenât really dog parks; they are open areas where you can take your dog. Now, I canât get a good enough picture of the sign to see what it says, so Iâm generalizing and am more than happy to change my tune if these signs are solidly âThis is a dog parkâ
This again leads me back to my point about the main photos of the entrances to the parks, including the gateway into the park with the sign as the main photo. I would personally resubmit any that are smaller dog parks with a clear entrance and fence around it. As I said the ones around the forest arenât eligible to me. I couldnât find the signs on Google Streetview at a couple of the locations. Which is a whole other problem unto itself. I didnât spend a whole lot of time looking at all of them, but I saw enough to know that some could be corrected and replaced and others would be difficult to sell me as being actual âdog parksâ as opposed to just open nature areas that happen to have a sign saying clean up after your dog.
I do agree that it would be nice if we were to get clarification on dog parks as a whole, what makes them eligible/not eligible. Living in the grey areaâs of Wayfarer is never fun, and can be tedious and frustrating at times.
Agreed. This is why I agree that further clarification on dog parks would be nice.
There was nothing disrespectful about either of the responses you got from Niantic team members.
This was not respectful. This was âI donât like what you said, weâre going to take our ball and go home.â Which is neither constructive nor does it further the conversation. This only serves to alienate those you are seeking to get answers from, which is not conducive to a constructful and meaningful conversation.
I donât disagree, but again telling Niantic youâre just going to pick up your ball and go home if you donât agree with that theyâre saying isnât how we accomplish getting this level of detail.
I looked through some of the Wayspots that were retired, and I can see why some of them were. I donât necessarily agree with their decision on all of them but I can see how they came to the conclusion they did given what I was able to see on Streetview for the majority of them.
I believe some of them can be salvaged, but some of them Iâm not so sure.
I donât see where NianticLC said they should be restored, was that on a separate thread?
No, that was that post. I guess you canât see a postâs edit history on this forum after a bit. When I posted my first response in this topic, I could see that LCâs post was edited, so I checked it and saw that Aaron had changed the content of LCâs post to what it says now. Hence me calling him out for it in my first reply.
Pretty much all of the smaller dog parks look something like this:
Ahh, Interesting. Itâs strange that the edited flag disappears.
Either way, that top one I would 100% approve and in my opinion that picture would make a solid main photo. Anything else like that one are eligible in my eyes.
The next two Iâd be hard-pressed to approve as a dog park as that looks more like an entrance to a forest than a dog park. That fence looks suspect, and thereâs no gate.
Then again, I donât live there and if thatâs something that is actively and culturally accepted as a dog park then thatâs something Niantic needs to consider when theyâre making their decisions.
