The criteria collection was not something present at the start. It was created as a result of discussions and requests for clarification regarding the application of the criteria, from here and the previous defunct version of the forum. People used to be confused about pools.
Asking for new or added clarification is how that collection was formed. And so now asking for new or added clarification again is not verboten.
The “core pillars” won’t change if they add new clarification for rural areas.
Agree, a better explanation for the current criteria would help. Especially regarding private property (I’ve had to appeal many nominations, because most people don’t know it should be used for Single Family Private Property), and the non-distinct option. If you look at the explanation for the non-distinct you are made to believe that if you can recognise it easily when in the neighbourhood, it is distinct.
In theory all streetlights in my neighbourhood are distinct if you would use this as reason not to reject, as they are all numbered.
It could also be improved by changing generic business into “not a Point of Interest”
Edit: in the explanation for the criteria its is mentioned that a reason for rejection is that it doesn’t meet any of the accepance criteria. So an alternative is to have a separate option to reject by selecting the “it doesn’t meet acceptance criteria” option
I am merging some discussion from the roadmap topic here and it will appear in time order. So it might feel slightly disjointed but please follow the replies carefully.
These are important conversations especially around how the criteria are applied.
I think the criteria is mostly fine, but especially allowing certain natural features would be a big help in rural areas: spots with great scenery (without scenic outlook benches), secret beaches, hidden gems within forests. I don’t think rocks or trees without any nature signs should be elligible, obviously, but more-so pretty spots that encourage exploration of nature. I, of course, am suggesting this from a lense of being Finnish: every Finn pretty much has a local forest where they can enjoy nature. Most of our forests do not have official trails or trail signage, but those local forests can have incredibly pretty spots, such as spots with great scenery or secluded streams with stepping stones, that encourage exploration in nature. With natural features, supporting photos and the main photo would do a lot of heavy-lifting when appraising the spot, as naturally, most natural features do not encourage exploration. More-so those incredibly pretty spots in nature you may know if you visit a certain place in nature a lot.
As someone mentioned above, being able to reject for not adhering to wayspot criteria would be a more urgent change in my books: the wayfarer interface does make it seem like you are rejecting a wayspot if you give it a thumbs down on each wayfarer criteria category when you are not. Additionally, a change in removal criteria would be in order imho: if a generic business slips through the tracks when reviewing, those should definitely be eligible for removal.
Regarding natural features - these are already eligible. A few years ago they weren’t, but this changed. To be specific, since you mentioned them, rocks without signs can definitely be eligible and accepted, such as this:
With natural features, it helps if there is something about that location that distinguishes it from spots 5m away and 10m away etc. Spots with great scenery are eligible, but without a physical object to pin the submission to (stepping stones are great, even if I often get them rejected), reviewers will struggle.
I think the criteria is already OK here, but educating the reviewer pool is the harder part.
They are supposed to be, but recently ive tried to get one through called the whangie, got rejected by the ai, then thr appeals team rejected for being a natural feature
I think the criteria is mostly fine, but issues arise in reviewers being fallible. If the criteria is consistently and accurately applied, a lot of issues with Wayfarer vanish. Problem is, they aren’t always consistent, and folks wind up rejecting locations that should be accepted and accepting ineligible locations that should be rejected.
Here is an example I have of a sizeable recreation area with no signs or entrance points. Rejected by ML and then appeal not accepted. Although the guidance encourages the wayspot to be placed at an entrance point or placemarker sign, none of these exist at that location and the criteria clarification acknowledges how this situation should be dealt with by clearly stating that “If there is an obvious entrance or focal point, that would be a good location to place the pin, but equally the middle of the park may be suitable.”
I am starting a battle with this now… we havea local nature and recreation area called Bugs Bottom (great name right?!) and although 2 of the entrances have signs, there are 3 leading in from other residential roads that are “proper” entrances but have no signs. I submitted the best 2 - one has a defined gap where the fence stops and a gravel path leads through, and the other has a really prominent sandy topped path leading in, a couple of bins, and a fence the same, but this one is hidden by undergrowth.
One was rejected by the ML and the other went immediately into Niantic review, I’m assuming ready to warn me for submitting ineligible things.
The ML really hates anything green that doesnt have a sign, so it means we can’t get these kinds of things in front of UK reviewers who may understand how things are. Or may also rejected for lack of signage. But I’d like the CHANCE!
The problem with that green space is that it is a featureless open space with nothing to indicate it’s purpose. There are plenty of mown green spaces, maybe with trees and/or bushes, which are nothing more than mown green spaces. They have no purpose beyond being green spaces, which doesn’t make them eligiible under anything.
Its over 10 acres, covering 2 sides of the valley with no vehicle access to cross the valley at that location so residential roads that lead to the nature area can only be linked together by walking
I took this picture the other day. Its managed partly as wildflower meadow and the current main PoIs are 2 valley floor level entrances and 2 carved benches
In that case, it would be unfair to get a warning for submitting ineligible things, but there’s no way of knowing the chances of acceptance. I suspect that in community review you wouldn’t stand a chance, even though being an officially named nature area it is not just a mown green space.
Whilst I think it is true that there will be some areas of mown grass that are aesthetically pleasing, yet are too small to serve any practical recreational purpose, this area is clearly of sufficient scale to have recreational value, as can be seen from the image below:
The appeal rejection doesn’t question the eligibility of the space, it just suggests using an entrance or a sign as a placemarker. There isn’t one. In those situations, Niantic guidance says it’s acceptable to put the pin in the middle of the area.
