Rejection reason: Thanks for the appeal, Explorer! The object in question does not meet the Wayfarer criteria as it is a common sign with no significance.
Title: Sembrando Vida (Planting Life - in english)
Description: Arte que fomenta la preservación ecológica de la comunidad. (Art that promotes ecological preservation of the community - in english)
Supplemental information: Es un área ideal para jugar Pokemon Go y beneficia a mayor actividad en la comunidad. (It is an ideal area to play Pokemon Go and benefits bigger activity in the community - in english)
I am trying to understand the rationale of this denial because it seems incorrect. This is not a generic sign. This is a sign created by my city municipality for thar specific area to promote ecological preservation by sowing plants and cleaning the trash out of the area. And it is a permanet sign that was placed before the COVID Pandemic started.
A way spot needs to be a great place to exercise, explore, or socialize.
The sign does not mark a site for any of those, and itself is not a great place to explore, IMO. It looks to be the end of a residential road outside an electric substation.
While the design is pleasing, the message is a generic ‘taking care of the land improves quality of life’ (paraphrasing). We had something similar to discourage littering years ago - signs all over that said “Keep America Beautiful”.
These are nice public strategies to get people to be better stewards of the land, but not really something that meets any of the way spot criteria. To do so, the sign would need to mark a site that the community considers to be a great place to exercise, explore or socialize, or the sign itself would need to be interesting or remarkable to be considered a great place to explore.
Thank you very much for the reply. I guess criteria has become way stricter through the years because there are pokestops and gyms on the game that they are just a generic sign identifying the entrance of a park or identifying a specific species tree or a dog zone.
in most of those cases, the sign represents the area, which is eligible. so the wayspot is for the area, not the sign.
for the species markers, those are up for debate. but generally if they are accepted it is either because they are educational or because they mark a trail to follow.
(apologies for the extra edits, but i kept realizing a better way to word it. leaving this post alone now.)
So, a public area at the dead end of a street is not considered a great place to play. I can tell that to the Pokemon Go trainers that go to play on the Dinamax node (the same electric station mentioned in the first reply to this post is the node) that is at the other side of that same public area.
I’m beginning to think that the “criterias” are being applied according to the eye of the beholder who makes the decision to either accept or reject an appeal in a very subjective way.
There is nothing much that a trainer can do anyway if that is the case.
Don’t get me started on those Dynamax imports that do not meet criteria! I think they are going to start removing reported ones that don’t based on this post:
It is not that the public place is or is not a great place to play but the object being submitted isn’t explained well on how it meets the eligibility criteria. Typically, if you can tie an activity which the object purposefully supports in relation to one of the three: socialization, exercise, exploration, there is premise for meeting eligibility.
In a way, this is true. Reviewers can only know what the submitter has shown and what they have gathered through looking at references available to them. This is presented as a nomination for a sign. While the public place as a whole might be considered a recreational area (if it is intended as one), the text you provided only talks about the sign (not as the placemarker for the area).
Wayfarer is just one of the avenues for creating game objects as referenced by @cyndiepooh . It is the only avenue available to players currently and is subject to criteria regardless of the other avenues not applied to the same standard.
I found out that my proposals that were approved in Wayfarer and did not appeared as pokestops in the game are now Dynamax Nodes, so I am not sure 100% that all Dynamax nodes do not comply with criteria.
These are 2 samples that do not appear as pokestops in the game but as Dynamax nodes:
Oh, I LOVE when they use Wayfarer approved for powerspots. Most of the ones in our park are ones I submitted that are used in Ingress, not Pogo. But they also used imports as well that did not have to undergo the Wayfarer process like our nominations do. These are the ones I have problems with. Lots of home businesses on SFPRP and places that don’t exist. Not to mention plenty that are downright dangerous. The Powerspots come from a mix of approved Wayspots and imports, as explained in that post I linked.
If trainers meet to play in an area to raid the hard Dynamax bosses and they do not break any public law by doing that on a public space, the location complies with the criterias of socialization, exploring and even exercising (those who play Pokemon Go in a tropical climate can understand what I mean), so again this is a very subjective thing.
I know about Ingress game and players making proposals through Ingress, but I do not play that game.
Maybe I will reword the submittal in a new proposal making more emphasis on the public space. I think that might help if I decide to submit a new proposal, as this appeal was denied.
In the end, I agree with your comment. There is a Dynamax Node in an industrial park in my neighbourhood that is inside a factory. The only way to access that node is on Saturday and Sunday (when there is no work at the factory) and one has to access a down ramp that starts on the sidewalk towards the basement level of the factory. It is not trespassing because there is no fence nor chains that separate it from the sidewalk.
I have seen others in my city that are on the road access to the highway, which cannot be played on foot.
I’m also from a third-world archipelagic tropical country but from Asia.
Simply saying that might not work as well as stating what activities tied to socialization, exploring, and exercising is supported in that public space. Specify details when applicable.
That is also subject to the same Wayfarer criteria as those submitted through Pokemon GO. The difference would be how each game chooses how and which wayspots are used for their gameboard.
There is already a wayspot for "Parque Pasivo Sency’ which is in the same cell as “Street simulator in park”. If you are unfamiliar with the inclusion rule for this game, here is an article explaining it.
refer to the tooltip under Appropriate from the review page:
This is why basing off of existing wayspots is not good practice for your own nominations. Wayfarer is an imperfect process which the reviewer, submitter, and Niantic itself can make mistakes. It may potentially be eligible for removal if it is truly pedestrian inaccessible. However, pedestrian access but limited to a subset of the public is still allowed as seen in the screenshot.
I highlight that each point of interest still has to meet eligibility criteria. Simply being on the allowed locations does not equate to meeting the eligibility criteria.
Parque Sensy pokestop is in another block of that neighbourhood and its access is also through another dead end street.
I do acknowledge since I started submitting proposals that not every approved proposal will appear in Pokemon Go game. Nevertheless if I see something that is worth it and can help the trainers, I submit it. At this moment on time, I celebrate if an approved proposal is shown as a Dynamax Node aa much as if it appears as a Pokestop, so I do not complain if it is not selected as such.
