What are peoples thoughts on zoos? I’ve seen a few where people are nominating every single enclosure or sign resulting in an extreme amount of locations within a very small area. Is there anything to suggest a maximum density of locations within a certain area?
My only issue with zoos is that it can be difficult to update wayspots when things change. I’ve known of a few zoos that change enclosures around and then 5 wayspots are in the wrong location. But that shouldn’t be a reason not to nominate. That just means Niantic needs to continue to improve their update/edit process.
4 Likes
There are no maximum density rules. Personally I would not nominate them all, but as a reviewer, I accept them if acceptable.
2 Likes
I wouldn’t nominate them all either. Its interesting why, though.
-
Limited nominations. I basically have a budget for nominations, so i won’t “spend them all in the same place.”
-
Time to acceptance. With ML doing fast acceptance, this may change for me. But historically, i didn’t want to overload the already burdened system with more nominations, especially those that wouldn’t show up in any game. The acceptance time has significantly sped up in my area. I’m now more likely to nominate “spare” POI (backups that will show up in my game of choice if the primary POI is removed). But i doubt i will ever reach the fully zen state of nominating just to put something in Lightship that will never be used in a game (that i know of).
4 Likes
Would they not come under permanent then? I mean how long is considered permanent? 2 years? 5 years? 10?
I don’t understand your question.
My thoughts on zoos are generally favorable, as far as reviewing: lots of stuff in zoos is fine, criteria-wise, and good Explore material. I’ve only made one Zoo nomination ever, though. My preference is always to kick-start a rural area or small town, providing enough base POIs for trainers/agents there to interact with and level up so that they can submit more on their own. High-density clusters within a paywall aren’t really what I’m after, although I’ll certainly give worthy candidates an approval when I see 'em in review.
3 Likes
There’s no hard and fast rule, but generally speaking if it seems likely to be there in a year from now and doesn’t have a posted ending/closing date then it’s permanent enough. Nothing lasts forever, and that’s why wayspots can be reported for no longer existing. But I think there is a tendency to worry too much about permanence in cases where it’s reasonable to assume that it will be there a while.
4 Likes
This is often the same for airports and museums or galleries. But I agree the edit process if updated would help.
3 Likes
For me, permanent is “no current plan for it to change”.
With a Zoo enclosure, there isnt a plan to move it, although they do move at times.
Its different froma travelling circus where there is an established end date.
Seasonal for me isnt a park that closes for the winter, it’s a Christmas tree or Halloween display that will disappear in a few weeks.
4 Likes
Yes, it can be hard to get Wayspots at zoos updated, whether it’s due to the exhibit being for a different animal, or the Wayspot no longer exists. My local zoo had a mosaic art piece of many animals that eventually eroded and was removed. I did request removal via PoGo, it was rejected, so I did have to appeal that rejection in the old forums.
Almost all of the other Wayspots there are up-to-date, just some that could be moved a meter or 2, but nothing that’s extremely off. Many of the animal exhibits also have several species, so they have names for those exhibits, i.e. North American Marsh is the pond for North American waterfowl, Pride on the Prairie for the buffalo and prairie dogs, etc.
Zoos are great places to explore, with many educational exhibits besides the animals, and other fun areas for all.
1 Like
It was a reply regarding “If waypoints at a zoo are likely to keep changing, would they be considered permanent?” Ie: what length of time is considered appropriate for something to be permanent.
Unless i knew that the zoo was planning to change things around, i wouldnt worry about “permanence.” Like, if there was a sign up explaining upcoming changes to be completed in the next few months, then i wouldn’t submit anything.
I only mentioned having to update POI in zoos because i remember someone on the old forum who had a really hard time with it after their zoo had gone through renovation. It was mostly hard because zoos often have lots of POI in a small space, so many of them are “Lightship only.” And zoos wouldn’t have google streetview inside to prove location. You have to be really good at proving the location of POI to get things updated if you ever need to. The same concept would apply at theme parks like Disney World where the Lightship map is cluttered with POI. But that doesn’t stop people from submitting.
I love zoo’s we live less than five miles from one and frequently go to see the animals and play games. It is great to do both and enjoy them together.
Specialist structures, for example for giraffes, lions, penguins, bears, elephants, reptiles are likely to be permanent. Bits of grass with a fence around them, less so. A close look at the sign (assuming it is visible) might give an idea as to the permanence.
If the location isn’t clear, or the permanent nature isn’t clear then you can always vote that you don’t know.
Did someone say zoos? I get to mention Tropical Birdland again?
I’m good with nominating each enclosure/eligible point of interest and distance doesn’t come in to consideration for me.
1 Like
That’s rather my point! I think that density of wayspots is problematic. I think it’s too many in one area. 2-3 per 100m sure, it encourages exploration and walking. 30? That’s getting silly. Ok sure, you are in a zoo and you are going to be exploring anyway, but that kind of density elsewhere I think detracts from the game.
Where does it say on Wayfarer you can’t have Wayspots that close?
The game inclusion rules take care of the density, so I let that decide what shows and what doesn’t, and don’t worry.
I’ll share this image.
This is a nature sign, and then a wooden puzzle as part of a trail on the back of that sign. I didn’t check cells or anything but they both appeared as they straddled the line it seems.
Would you have not nominated both, even though they’d be eligible?
2 Likes
Under normal circumstances (meaning not manipulated by abusers), not all of those POI will show in the games. The games will only pick up the ones that fit within their spacing rules.
2 Likes
A nature sign on one side with a puzzle on the back should be one wayspot. This is why I have come across trail markers placed as two or more wayspots. Usually they are also placed strategically to be in the games away from the other location.
If one side of the pole points towards one direction and the other side towards a different direction it should all be reflected in the wayspot.
To be honest if I came across these stops I would report it as duplicate and appeal showing photos of the entire sign.
It is similar to the mural with sign or statue with sign or church with sign etc.
This is why scanning is trying to capture the wayspots and if you scanned this it would show both sides.
There was questions recently on playground objects for the actual playground and each individual play structure or piece around it. This includes the springy toys etc. Seems pretty simple to me that if they are located within the playground it is one object, unless there is a different play area with it’s on wood-chips, say for a swingset or the delineation between the toddler playground and the older kids’ playground.