Hello everyone, I would like to ask why my Wayspot is not accepted and consequently continues to be rejected. Now I will explain how I structured my application:
Pokestop Name: The V|rgin and the Child.
Description: Fresco on the wall, where it represents the V|rgin Mary with the baby Jesus.
In the additional information they asked me I wrote: A place within the streets of this small town, where this interesting fresco is present, where it overlooks a public road and a passage for many people. Being streets in the center of the town (not the city) it is not at all busy and easy to pass through.
The point where the second photo was taken, or rather the surrounding area, seems to me to obviously suggest that there is a pedestrian crossing, so why is it not accepted? The photo seems very understandable to me. In your opinion, how could I reapply for this pokestop.
Yes but in this case I don’t see the logic, I’ll explain why: Look at this other photo, it’s of another pokestop that I proposed and they accepted me. But anyway, this one is also attached to a building, a private residence…
If it’s on a private residence, even on the outward facing side of the property boundary (in this case, the outside wall), it should not have been approved and it should really be removed. There are many grey areas when it comes to the wayfarer criteria, but the private residential property rule is one of the rules where there has been plenty of clarification on it.
The rules are quite clear on private residential property. I do agree that it looks beautiful, but if it breaks the rules, it breaks the rules. There’s not really much that can be done about it.
Most of catholic outside Mediterranean frescos and sculptures are in private buildings but for the view of the public, not as a private access…I mean, most of graffiti are the same too…in public buildings they are erased…
I don’t disagree with the observation. Many beautiful religious art pieces or pieces in general are displayed on private residential property. As people we can very much enjoy these objects.
Unfortunately it is against the rules that Niantic has set out for them to be eligible for the map, and therefore they cannot be in the games. Niantic has games across the globe, yet they are headquartered in the United States. As a company they are sensitive to lawsuits. So they are conservative on some of the eligibility/rejection items.
There are tons of way spots in the database that should never have been approved, so it’s never a good idea to judge your nomination based solely on what’s already there. Graffiti or murals that are on private single-family residences should be reported and removed because they explicitly violate policy. Most people won’t report them if they benefit from them, but that doesn’t mean that more should be added .
I don’t understand the rulling on the whole no “privat” property thing when most stops and gyms in Germany are on private property, technically. Look at 99.99% of the play parks. There are 20 in my neighborhood and only two of them are not on “private” property, they are on/in Apartment complex areas and are technically for those that live in said Apartments but as there are no boundry fences anyone from the public can walk into them and play and almost all of them in my neighborhood has a stop or gym execpt for two. One I nominated one and the other one is newely finished. But as my first nomination has been sitting in voting for almost 3 months now and my second nomination was rejected only hours after nominating it I don’t see a point in nominating anymore. I have over 30 “stops” in Ingress the went through, took 2 years, without a problem and only had 3 that didn’t pass through I just don’t understand the whole private thing as 20 of the 30 plus were on private property.
Great question about community areas. Playgrounds, dog parks, pools, even art in a common area of a condominium, apartment complex, or gated community are perfectly eligible. Things on a balcony or in a private unit are not.
Often to make it more clear we use the term, single family private residential property (SFPRP). Things within or on SFPRP are not eligible.
To be honest, I can’t tell if those pieces would be considered sanctioned by the cities or vandalism (since they are protesting with their art). Either way, it sounds like some talented artists presenting unique art.
That said - if it’s not sanctioned by the city and will likely be painted over soon - it is not eligible. Don’t nominate it and/or don’t be mad if it is removed.
At least in their latest event in my country, the mayor has taken part in the actual spray painting. The event also had permits made.
I don’t see why protesting in the form of art is a deal-breaker in places where protests can be expressed in such a way.
The organization is an actual non-profit org so that leads me to believe they do it legally. However, we should also recognize that artists who take part may also create non-sanctioned art too. There are still pieces that are only comprised of tags, still leaning to reject those ones.
My concern is that it can be difficult for both the nominator to describe the event in such a way to establish a lasting piece of artwork. And the reviewer to understand that it is in an accurate Lorand permanent.
It is not appropriate @agueau to refer to reviewers who correctly answer this as “Niantic police”
This is clarified further
To ignore these guidelines would be to assess wrongly and if you do that repeatedly and ignore advice to improve you could find yourself subject to sanctions.
