- Other type of abuse
Any other type of abuse that you feel is not in keeping with the spirit of Wayfarer’s mission to create the most interesting, family-friendly, and accurate representation of the real-world.
Thanks.
Can you please indicate where this is described as wayfarer’s mission - oops, just found it sorry!
This is your opinion about playground.
This is Niantic opinion about playground, that is in the spirit of Wayfarer’s mission to create the most interesting, family-friendly.
You are against it yknow.
1 Like
Huh. Never read that sentence before, hiding right down at the bottom of the rejection criteria.
I think it is unreasonable to take that as a stand-alone description of wayfarer, without the context of What makes a place or object eligible to be a Wayspot? Niantic Wayfarer
Inventing your own criteria is definitely not within the mission of wayfarer.
Please review within the written rules of the criteria rather than applying your own, which are an incorrect interpretation and I know we have discussed this with you before.
4 Likes
I’m not saying that all playgrounds can’t be nominated. There are some truly popular playgrounds in parks and squares.
However, I would also like to draw attention to the following phrase…
Not “should” or “must”, but rather “can”.
We need to pay attention to the actual situation around each individual playground to understand whether it really has an important meaning in socialization or is just another decoration for the yard as a symbol of the “good life”.
What rules did I invent? I only cited one, which is written in the rejection criteria. Please explain why my interpretation of the rules is incorrect.
That’s a fair point that playgrounds are not automatic acceptances. However, nothing is an automatic acceptance - everything has to be justified. For some things, it’s easier than others, such as playgrounds.
If you read through that Playgrounds article, the nuances from Niantic are about how individual pieces of play equipment are an issue. If Niantic said that all playgrounds were automatically accepted, then where is the dividing line between a formal playground with a fence, seating, swings, roundabouts etc and a rope swing attached to a tree in the woods behind someone’s house?
This is why it is “can be eligible”, to acknowledge there is no hard line between these two extremes.
It seems you have been fighting to remove playground for a long time.
Anyway wayfarer is about community. Things that seems significant to some community might be significant to other community. Just because you find it boring, doesnt make it ineligible.
Yes true. But this also defined by community not a single person. If enough person deemed such playground to great place to exercise/socialize, it will be approved.
You are free to reject playground as your preference but dont ask other to do the same. Everyone have their own opinion
You already know. We’ve been over this already. Either review properly or don’t bother.
The problem lies precisely in the community, the majority of which adheres to the “more is better” paradigm. All nominations are treated extremely superficially. The community doesn’t pay attention to names, descriptions, photos, or geolocation. They certainly won’t evaluate the importance of any particular playground. The community’s thinking is “playground = accept.” Updated: This is about the community in my country.
Playground in public or gated community are eligible
Playground in school/similar K12 facility or SFPRP are ineligible
Hey, I think you have made your views on playgrounds abundantly clear over this and many previous posts in the past, and I think you have clearly conveyed you didn’t like them, and everyone in this discussion and your multiple previous posts understood this. That’s fine, don’t nominate them, but at this point it’s not a very productive discussion as the criteria and the relevant clarifications have been shared, this forum is not for the bashing of the nominations your locals make, and there is no particular reason to consider your country an exception.
To everyone in the thread, let’s consider moving on please - thanks for your understanding.
5 Likes
Cool, silence is always better than solving problems. That’s why I came to the forum. To keep silent. Thank you 
I’m truly not trying to be rude, but we can’t solve a problem that only exists in your own mind. No one else thinks the Wayfarer situation in your country is a problem.
3 Likes
Nobody sees this as a problem, simply because they follow the “the more the better” paradigm. Why should they complain that every nomination they make is approved? That they have a lot of PokéStops and Gyms? They don’t care at all what is written and depicted on the wayspot.
I have made many posts on these forums stating that I am the totally opposite to “the more the better” but I still don’t see your argument with POIs that meet criteria should not be accepted.
Niantic’s criteria state that Playgrounds are acceptable unless their location makes it rejectable (SFPRP, Schools etc). Why should you decide that you don’t like that particular waypoint so therefore it should be removed?
I have also stated that there are a certain type of trail marker that I don’t like, I don’t reject them as I know that these are Acceptable to criteria so I Skip. Just because I wished there where “better” markers in there place doesn’t mean I should vote against them.
5 Likes
You appear to be the player mentioned in this post.
Yes, they talk about me, but of all those accusations in the nominations, I am only involved in a couple. This is mainly due to the fact that players split nominations into individual elements and, moreover, place them deliberately far from the actual location. The Niantic team confirmed this. I don’t complain about nominations I “simply don’t like.” These people are well-versed in the rules. As you can see from that thread, they even made a translated version of the rules for themselves and new players. This confirms that they’re breaking the rules not out of ignorance, but deliberately.