For anyone who has landed on this topic of “How to review streetsigns without abusing acceptance criteria” and has genuine questions, the answer has been provided by staff on another post:
That topic also questioned when we should use the “not Distinct” rejection reason. Staff said this was a legitimate way to reject a nomination. It is not abuse to use this reason.
Staff have also said previously that we must pick one of the first four questions to reject a nomination:
Staff have also advocated for rejecting pools and trail markers, despite them clearly meeting eligibility criteria. This was clearly wrong and the community saw through it. Saying something that is visually distinct isn’t is also clearly wrong.
Sad for our communities that they lost both of our time with this new review flow and advice on how to use it 
And that was done through series of communication, opinions and civil persistence not through attacking other reviewers because you disagree with methods provided by staff.
I agree that the definition that is used for Wayfarer for items being distinct is not very accurate. At first I also used the definition as provided as a guiding principle.
However I do believe, that the word “distinct” has a broader meaning than what is mentioned in the guidelines, at least certainly if I look at the words used in my own language, it also means “stand out from the masses”.
Every street sign can easily be identified when in the neighbourhood, but if they don’t add any special meaning, I don’t think they stand out. In fact all streetlights in my street have a unique number, so yes, I can identify them when in the neighbourhood. But would I really be interested in looking at them? No, so they are not distinct enough.
So I don’t mind using the non-distinct option. If it does not meet any of the three criteria, it just doesn’t stand out.
Would it be nicer if we could actually use a better rejection method, yes I completely agree, as it will help people in understanding why a nomination was rejected.
In The Netherlands you do see a lot of streetsigns with the names of famous people, often even explaining why they were famous (eg famous painter from the 17th century). I do reject these, as no one really looks at those signs for the cultural meaning, they are used to find the right address/directions:
Can’t really have this anymore when some can’t see any position, outside the orthodoxy, as anything more than bad faith.
There’s plenty of people behind that same position that have brought it up in a civil manner. @cyndiepooh has advocated about it openly since that information broke out, yet still follows the given guidance.of course there various levels one is willing to go, some may have decided to stop reviewing because of it, some may skip etc… but attacking fellow Wayfinders is not it.
Having reviewed the topic as a whole I have altered the title to reflect the broader nature of the discussion in order to help the community navigate the topics.
In what way? This seems like it’s taking things in a pretty good direction to me and acknowledging that the community is too strict about acceptance criteria. I’m only disgruntled in that I want to see my street sign nominations restored since Niantic removed them previously, despite meeting both eligibility and acceptance criteria.
This is likely an effort to support gameplay experiences in areas lacking Wayspots. While I believe such measures are necessary, I also don’t think the criteria need to be changed. Wayfarer mapping should remain focused on encouraging exploration.
Downtown Redmond needs these wayspots.
And my street signs nominations do encourage exploration. Unfortunately, the post with my supporting info that backs this up was moved to a different thread.
They might encourage exploration, but street signs are ineligible since they are mass produced iteme which you can see almost anywhere.
Like playgrounds?
I don’t either. Like I said, my nominations meet both acceptance and eligibility criteria. Are there other criteria I’m not aware of?
I’m sorry to say something that goes against your feelings.
I’m not saying it can’t be recognized just because it’s a mass-produced item or something ordinary. But can we go to the place where that sign is and actually experience it? Surely not. To meet the eligibility criteria, I believe some kind of experience must be possible, and it must fit into one of the three defined eligibility criteria.
Yes.
Per my supporting info, my nominations met two of the three eligibility criteria. I’m sorry to hear that this is too many of the criteria by your standards.
You are comparing apples to pears right now.
Street signs are mass produced, because they are on every block/street. I don’t think playgrounds are on every street/block.
I would also say that street signs are not touchable by us explorers so not safely accesible is discussable case as well.
It doesn’t matter how much the support info or description backs up your nomination. They are mass produced, so ineligible by criteria.
Please don’t spread misinformation.
No, I’m comparing street signs to street playgrounds.
Good point. There are more street signs (and intersections) than playgrounds. As wayfarers, we should submit and accept playgrounds before street signs.
Vertical accessibility is well established, but if you need me to touch these street signs for them to be eligible, I can do that.
Almost everything is mass produced. It sounds like you’re advocating for removing most wayspots.
How am I spreading misinformation by asking that Niantic reinstate my eligible nominations?
I did actually read your post, and could not disagree more.
Yes, pathways help people in exploring the city, but that is not the main purpose. The main purpose is giving people a safe opportunity to cross the road.
And yes, some streets are named after famous people, but that doesn’t make the sign of significant cultural value.
In my view to get a streetsign to approved for significant cultural value, it would have to be a sign where people actually would try to make pictures of the sign to show other people they were there (so signs for really well known streets, eg Lombard Street in San Francisco).
And to get it approved for exploring, or exercise, I would like to see some evidence that it actually marks a route/trail. Otherwise it just confirms your location. Does it help to know where you are, yes, but it doesn’t help you to get to the next point.
But I guess, I won’t be able to convince you.
