Only going on the evidence I can see and the plausibility.
No “Walking Trail” is going to include “At this point, follow the course of the pitch and putt”.
If the Trail Like markers are indeed Trail Markers then they should be nominated as such. Personally, with the names you have listed above they are not trail markers, they are Hole or Tee Markers.
The council are definitely maintaining it as a Pitch and Putt as you clearly see Tees, fairways and Greens, if they where advising that cyclist should be running over it surely the pitch and putt items would be removed and the grass allowed to grow out.
I have highlighted the most obvious “walkways” between greens / tees and it is obviously laid out in such a way that you are expected to do 1 hole with the next tee close by. It is definitely not “spread out across the entire park.“ as shown on the map.
These wayspots are several years old, added during the OPR days. Before there was this additional frisbee/golf guidance. There is evidence from the council which is the local authority that there is a trail which goes around the pitch and putt area. The way to access Sandall Beat wood from Cantley Park is through the Pitch and Putt. Also the first and last pictures on that postcard are specifically of the Pitch and Putt and the aerial photo shows some of the Pitch and Putt because the Pitch and Putt covers a large area of the park starting at the Pavilion which is the building in the aerial view and finishes at Sandall Beat Wood. It’s nearly half of the entire park. If someone was randomly reporting the stops through wayfarer, wouldn’t Niantic have removed all the stops and not just ones that could be easily seen on IITC? Are we now reporting wayspots that were eligible during OPR and are no longer eligible?
Wow. From that wording, someone knew that they weren’t eligible as markers for the course.
What usually happened when I reported disc golf course markers I saw in review is that the game location was removed, but the Wayspot was left. I assume that was so that they would be marking duplicate if resubmitted, but have never been told the reason it is done that way. I wonder if the wayspots are still there on the nomination map screen.
Hi Aaron, understood Thankyou. My concern for foul play is still active - we have had all of the remaining pitch and putt stops removed, we have now had 5 football pitches removed from the park and a wild area sign for a grand total of 25 POIs reported and removed.
This morning I was contacted by a player who frequents the park and got many POIs submitted in the area, telling me their POIs have gone and asking if I know what’s going on at Cantley Park.
Whoever is doing this is looking to decimate it completely. I have an evidence of a player we had to investigate and ban from our local community groups due to local player reports of fake POI nominations and false locations, targeting a waypoint in the area a couple of weeks ago to remove it. So there is some petty behaviour going on somewhere there. Should I send this to the report abuse channel?
Every single one of the Pitch & Putt Waymarkers were approved by Niantic. They all have Google spheres to show that they are real. So when they were sent to appeal with the information from the council, they were accepted. They were denied by people on the other team as a safety issue. Not every single sub in the OPR days had descriptions and none of them had supporting photos. To assume malintent is wrong.
Do they meet criteria now, based on what @elijustrying and @NianticAaron are now saying no. So Niantic removed them instead of grandfathering them. That is Niantic’s right. It’s their game.
We have just had another 6 stops removed from the park that are not related to the Pitch & Putt. Should I create a new thread or continue the one here?
5 football pitches (Cantley Park has 15 most of which weren’t in the game. ) and an information sign for the wild area which just happens to be near a football pitch.
I would guess the 5 football pitches have disappeared for a similar reason to the golf course POI: duplication. As such, it’s fundamentally the same issue as before.
Has the criteria for multiple sports fields changed again? It was 1 no matter how big in OPR. Then changed to yes multiple are fine. I’ve not seen anything about going back to 1 sports field
My understanding (and there is clarification somewhere) is that different sports on a single sports field are valid as separate POI, but multiple locations for the same sport will be considered duplicate.
So if one playing field has a full-sized football field, a 5-a-side field and rugby posts, that’s three POI. If it has 5 full-sized football fields, a 5-a-side field and rugby posts, that’s three POI.
[Edited to add the following]
I think the different sports need to occupy physically different spaces. So, for example, a basketball court that doubles as a tennis court would be a single POI because they are the same object.
Hopefully someone can clear this up because when the ruling changed originally, the example was multiple baseball fields in a location are all separate poi, based on the size of the field. What I was told is that they were possibly removed for being in the wrong location (not on a goal post) but 2 of them they were on the goal post.
Think that some people take this as “as long as you name them different” but most comments agree that multiple football pitches at the same facility are not distinct.
As @salixsorbus states above, different sports, variations (standard 11 a side vs 5 a side)(grass tennis vs clay tennis) are distinct and can have 1 nomination each.
This thread got me thinking and the best (possibly should say worse) example is that you would nominate a bowling alley as 1 waypoint. You wouldn’t nominate each lane even if they went in to different cells.
That feels like a decent comparison. Although it feels most rational to have one POI per sport, I have some sympathy with one POI for pitch. I just didn’t bother trying that when I found a ‘hidden’ local sports field, because it felt /wrong/ - three football pitches, one submission.
