The sheep caught my eye and I saw it was the Greensand walk then 
1 Like
Sometimes I enjoy the supporting comments. Lots of “please we need more pokestops” or “I am nominating all the [insert blank object] on this trail and each one should be a pokestop”.
I nominate via ingress and pokemon go since i don’t have enough nominations in one game. To be honest, I uploaded 2 submissions a couple days ago from ingress and they went to the nether world and the report a problem told me I hadn’t nominated anything since 2020 
This wasn’t the first time it happened and it won’t be the last. I would really like pokemon go to say “wayspot” not pokestop. Would be nice if there was a disclosure saying it may not make actually make it into the game too.
I understand residential communities don’t have many options when you have single family dwellings. This one below was on PRP. However, it was at the edge of the property line with a sidewalk.
Today’s interesting supporting comment: "little free libraries are an essential part of pokemon go players having access to pokestops in residential areas. there are no less than 10 other successful little free library pokestops in this town already. idk this submission was rejected the other day. Little free libraries are eligible "
1 Like
For me is seeing people spreading fake/unreal criteria within the community. This doesn’t help the growth of wayfarer community at all but create confusion.
1 Like
So I had asked this and was told it shouldn’t be a spot because it’s unsafe but the sign is for the pond in the center of the trail that loops around it as a warning . My thought on this is people are normally looking at Pokémon go on their phones and not the area around them so I thought this would be good because they would spin the stop and see the warning to stay away from the water and to not feed the animals if you encounter them . I live in fl so these signs are all over parks even signs like watch out for bears and so forth .just wanted a 2nd opinion . I was also told that the pond could be nominated instead .
Welcome to the forum!
The main criteria for a Wayspot to be accepted (Niantic Wayfarer) is:
Must meet at least one of the three eligibility criteria
- A great place for exploration
- A great place for exercise
- A great place to be social with others
Since this is a warning sign, I don’t see how it meets any of these.
It is hard for me to comment on the eligibility of the pond without seeing photos.
3 Likes
By having a game object to interact with, it gives players an incentive to be drawn to it; defeating the intended purpose of the sign.
This is also why it is best to draw the merits of the POI/object/place from real life use. The eligibility criteria IMO is intended to mirror great places for leisure existing irl. The interaction within the gameboard happens as a result of the presence of eligible POIs in reality, not the other way around.
And one way to show this is how the real object is used/interacted with in real life. In addition to photos, how does the pond (or any POI to be nominated) directly could relate towards the three eligibility?
5 Likes
My pet peeves:
1- Lower case titles and descriptions.
2- Poor grammar.
3- “Dear reviewer” requests in supporting info.
4- “No pokestops in the area”, then you go check the map and there are plenty.
5- Main photos with too much foreground or background (road, sidewalk, sky, other objects).
6- Main photo and supporting photo apparently switched up.
7- Misplaced locations.
8- “Do not change location to not interfere with the cells.”
9- Locations with no StreetView, poor satellite view and bad supporting photo.
10- Descriptions with info that should be in the supporting info field.
12- Main photo and supporting photo exactly the same.
11- Fake nominations that try to mislead the reviewer due to possible lack of knowledge of the matter (like a nomination for a full fledged astronomical observatory inside a gated residential community with the pin pointing to a wooden treehouse-like that could be anything but a full fledged astronomical observatory - and there were none in sight).
12- Obvious fake nominations with request for approval in supporting info.
I think that’s it. At least for now 
PS: While these are my pet peeves, I must say I’ve done a few myself when I first started nominating, specially 5 and 9 
.
3 Likes
You know, I started writing up a big list here…I’m prone to hyperfixation on small details, after all! But I thought it over and decided that might be disheartening to newer Wayfinders here who might have made those mistakes (mistakes in my opinion, anyway) and that’s not my intention. I don’t want to shame anyone!
Condensed down to general terms, though, my list would read:
- Intentional fake nominations.
- Extreme low-effort nominations, like “Sculpture” wayspots with a description of “Sculpture” and supporting info “Sculptures are eligible”. I love seeing official names, obscure back-stories, artist credit, history, and details! I know, though, that some things don’t lend themselves to such detail - like playgrounds or sports fields.
- Disrespect or a dismissive attitude towards my fellow Wayfinders. I’d rather hear more people saying “I disagree, for these reasons…” than shouting “you’re wrong!”. Every one of us is a unique human person, with their own strengths and struggles.
I guess that’s about it! It’s early, and I need more coffee.
7 Likes
Appreciate that info and I did not nominate it or the pond .
2 posts were split to a new topic: Japanese Agricultural Land
Memorials and plaques of people not noteable. Generics pools. Generic businesses. All schools. Foot bridges.
Two that I’m noticing recently in reviews.
- Main photo and supporting photo are the same, so I can’t tell where the Wayspot is located, or if someone is trying for a fake because the object doesn’t actually exist there
- Supporting photo doesn’t contain the Wayspot at all (a recent one was a E II R postbox, so rejected anyways, but the supporting photo was a field with a street sign kinda visible in it?)
7 Likes
Another one for me:
Submitting a wayspot and having it rejected for the wrong reasons (like being rejected for PRP when it’s clearly not).
1 Like
I nominated a foot bridge before checking here, comments made me think that it would not be accepted but it got straight through…
My main pet peeve are the trail markers that are just a disc (or even just a sticker) with an arrow. One of the questions include “is it unique?”, well no as there about 20 of them so cant be unique…
Seems the general consensus is to accept them but I can’t do it so I have taken to skipping them…
1 Like
which question says “is it unique”?
Sorry, states “Distinct”. Same argument…
“recognizably different in nature from something else of a similar type.”
Hi @SlimboyFat71
The uniqueness lays in the trail not on the sticker. It could be the simplest marker, if it’s permant, is standing for a specific part of the trail or is a decision point, than the marker is perfectly acceptable (anchor point).
The nomination has to point that out
2 Likes
I except that if their is something extra such as the start / end points with information board, specific point on route with board showing details of the current view / local wildlife etc.
An arrow saying “carry on this way” is not a decision point.
I understand that this is not the current opinion of the majority of the community which is why I decided to skip them instead of declining.
Going slightly off topic I also beleive that allowing too many waypoints goes against the idea of “exploring”, why continue to explore if I can walk 200 metres, battle 3 Gyms and spin 10 stops… I would prefer more quality over quantity and these arrow markers are not that.
Thanks for the comments and all taken onboard, still think skipping is best to keep my sanity 
Yes, I only commented on this in case someone new read it and feel curious.
I think that some nominators seems to believe that trail marker are slam dunks and give zero effort into it but I hope that the “I understand how it works” user are increasing 
Good that you’ve found a balance between continue to review and mental health 
People who dont understand grammer and dont use it.
‘the kings head’ or ‘The Kings Head’
we all know which looks better at the end of the day. 80% of my edits are correcting this sort of stuff
Also although i know its now requiered in new submittions but POIs without any decription wind me up no end
2 Likes