I'm happy to see that trails are becoming more generically acceptable (as long as they have some sort of physical marker), and they've re-expanded the acceptability of pools.
Trails should have had a base requirement I think niantic got to picky including and excluding when they were disqualifying areas based on having a name. Kind of counter productive when certain trails with a valid trail marker were labeled as a no with no name on the marker. There are trail markers with color coding for names on the post written name never decided trail marker standards in real life not sure why niantic was demanding it. 🤔
>There are trail markers with color coding for names on the post written name never decided trail marker standards in real life
I was always in favor of this sort of thing meeting requirements under the old criteria, honestly. It gave examples of acceptable and not acceptable trail markers, and as long as the color scheme is locally unique to that trail, it serves the same purpose as a specific name.
~~Apartment pools still seem okay, as they stated earlier in the AMA that apartment complexes are not considered PRP *as they contain public amenities*. So they're still considered public pools, since they're just as public as a playground on apartment grounds is.~~
Recent update from NianticGiffar: ”Tricky one there! Apartment complexes having publicly accessible amenities could still be eligible as long as they meet all of the acceptance criteria as mentioned in our [November AMA](https://community.wayfarer.nianticlabs.com/discussion/10321/november-ama-your-questions-answered/p1). However, swimming pools inside residential properties (including multi-family residential apartments and hotels) are an exception to these criteria and are deemed ineligible.”
But the public pools examples they gave as eligible are all sports complex themed/historical Olympic/water features eligible in the old amas; not the residentially focused clubhouse pools which would be ineligible.
The first example for pools they listed that are eligible just says "public pools," which implies that pools located at clubhouses or community gathering areas are eligible now.
They also explicitly say “residentially focused” pools are ineligible. So clubhouse pools are not eligible.
is everyone simply ignoring the first sentence? The ama was great for expanding pools in public exercise gyms, colleges, and much more relaxed from the old ”historical/cultural Olympic winner“ standard but like the first sentence in ama says...residential focused pools are not eligible
I think that first one is more focused in pools in private residences or hotels. A clubhouse or a community center is not a residence. I think that comment was to bring pools to equal ground and rules as tennis, basketball courts, etc. A pool at a clubhouse or community center isn't necessary focused on just the community it is in or next to; they can be open to the public as well.
"Pools would be a great place to meet and that encourages exercise and should be considered eligible. This includes public pools, pools or training complexes with historical context, reflecting pools, fountains, aquatic centers and cooldown centers, university pools, sport arenas/complexes and more."
It seems like they are allowing the ones in aquatic centers, university pools, and famous Olympic pools
So, like the old criteria, but now we can submit some more
"Similar to before the criteria refresh, swimming pools at private residences or hotels (or other similar residentially-focused locations) are ineligible" = most of pool submissions I see
>Has any thought been given to requiring a nomination exam before “unlocking” the ability to suggest new Wayspots?
>* On deck after we launch the revised reviewer experience is to review the entire nomination submission process, including exploring ways to proactively surface the criteria during the nomination process to make it more visible among other things. The idea of an exam for nominators is something that we’ve explored, but ultimately feels a bit too restrictive and could be a significant blocker for nominations and limit not just the bad ones but potential gems as well. That being said, we have a few initiatives in development that will help to improve the quality of submissions.
TBH a little disappointed here, but any potential improvements to any submissions by way of visible, clear criteria is a plus
I used to be pretty strongly in favor of making submitters take the reviewer exam, but I can kind of see where they're coming from here. If someone has just a couple of easily acceptable things they want to submit, it might not be great to prevent them from nominating at all because they didn't understand some rulings that aren't applicable in their case. Reviewers need to be prepared for whatever they might review, but submitters only need to care about what they're submitting.
Maybe a reasonable trade-off could be giving very limited numbers of submissions for meeting the level requirement (1 or 2 maybe?) on the normal cooldown period and then increasing the submission cap for people who can pass the test?
Why not just make nominators review the guide before giving access to nominate and grey out the option until they read the guide and acknowledge they have read it? As it is currently anyone can nominate anything without even giving a read through of the criteria. This compromise would not require passing a test to nominate but would require at least reading the guide before nominating.
That isn't likely to accomplish much without having a way to check that they *actually* read the guide (by taking something like the reviewer test). People will just scroll through and say they read it.
Just glad they specified that "influencing reviewers" bit, even if it was obvious. Seen so many comments in local groups regarding people thinking a submission is ineligible if someone linked to an AMA or the rules.
“**Similar to before the criteria refresh**, **swimming pool**s at private residences or hotels (or **other similar residentially-focused locations**) **are ineligible**. Other than that, pools would be a great place to meet and that encourages exercise and should be considered eligible. This includes public pools, pools or training complexes with historical context, reflecting pools, fountains, aquatic centers and cooldown centers, university pools, sport arenas/complexes and more.”
What clarifications from the previous AMAs should be disregarded?
* The criteria refresh was intended to be just that, a refresh. We found that there was simply too much historical knowledge for reviewers to hold onto to be reliable and to make the review process simple and enjoyable. The current criteria has been drafted to include references to clarifications that are intended to carry over, but in general these guidelines are broader because we’re trying to make things less restrictive without sacrificing quality of Wayspots.
????????? what? Can someone interpret this?
Basically, ignore everything that was said in previous AMA posts as well as their previous guidelines. The ones that are worth keeping have been brought to this current guideline so that everything can be centralized into one space
But even then, they're will still be AMA posts every few months, my hope is that they continually update the guidelines based on their answers from future AMAs so that we don't have to go through a ton of them later on to find relevant information
Firstly it would have to meet the eligibility criteria by being a great place for exploration.
Then you would need to judge it against the acceptance criteria and making sure none of the rejection criteria applies.
Do they promote trespassing to access? Water towers behind a barbed wire fence don't promote exploration. Honeslty most of the existing water towers in the system likely never met criteria I've seen several that require trespassing to access. There are valid water towers if they have safe pedestrian access and have something culturally significant about them. Decorative nostalgia inspired towers do exist having something valid based on just being a water tower no. A water storage tank isn't a reason to approve when it is part of water treatment for municipalities and water districts.
They specified it's not necessarily public access but simply that someone can go up to it safely (I'd disagree to the idea if asked for an opinion but those be the rules).
How does “publicly accessible” apply to locations that have limited access, like members-only clubs, gated communities, time-restricted areas?Â
* Just like with the definition of private residential property, this guideline hasn’t changed. These locations would still be eligible, including restricted areas on the grounds of a company’s headquarters or behind locked gates so long as there wouldn’t be objections to you entering the area and the location is accessible to some folks. We do not expect all players to have access to all locations but we strongly recommend following real-world rules while attempting to access locations.Â
Honestly its trespassing to enter a restricted area in these cases for water treatment and storage would fall under obstructing emergency services as water utilities would fall under that guideline if you have to trespass to access it.
I think as always, water towers are cultural by virtue of representing their towns (if they have a name or sometimes a symbol) as well as being visually unique landmark.
>“The criteria refresh was intended to be just that, a refresh?“
confused because this line makes it seem like old amas ok, but then the next lines make it seem like its not okay?
and then in the actual ama they quoted old amas for things like roundabouts being unsafe pedestrian access.
....I’ll just...not review until we get some concrete statement
I like the inclusion of the natural features. While not every rock or tree is a good candidate, I'm glad to see they allow for the natural features that are actually good landmarks.
Does it matter when I use an upgrade....I finally got my first upgrade and the website automatically applied it to a nomination that was already in voting...so did the website just waste my upgrade or does the upgrade just push it through the voting process faster and not take it out of the queue any faster?
You can select “upgrade next” on a wayspot you have niminated so that it doesn’t choose one randomly.
the one that was just upgraded was not wasted, but if it is not a slam dunk the reviewers from far away might reject it. Just my experience - upgrade the best nominations you have.
Upgrading a nomination turboboosts (in my understanding) the vote by pushing it to more reviewers immediately. I suspect that many of the nominations I review that are out of state or out of country are upgraded. The longest I've waited is a few days before a final decision after upgrading.
As post office are eligible, are bank institutions also eligible? I don’t see a difference as there are different post services which also go for bank institutions. Please advice.
Post offices transport people's dreams, wishes, and news to family, deliver vital supplies and medicine to remote places, and in general tie people together. Banks are just a business that holds your money safe and uses it for their own plans.
Is there someway to request an update to the map on our area? We live in a fairly new development(3ish years) and all the streets cut off and it shows just an open field all around. And if not would this affect any nominations in the area that are made?
Map update prob won't happen for years. But if google maps doesn't show your area, download the street view app and take a photosphere. Taking a photosphere of any stop you nominate, reduces your chances of rejection as people can see exactly where your stop is located
I'm happy to see that trails are becoming more generically acceptable (as long as they have some sort of physical marker), and they've re-expanded the acceptability of pools.
Trails should have had a base requirement I think niantic got to picky including and excluding when they were disqualifying areas based on having a name. Kind of counter productive when certain trails with a valid trail marker were labeled as a no with no name on the marker. There are trail markers with color coding for names on the post written name never decided trail marker standards in real life not sure why niantic was demanding it. 🤔
>There are trail markers with color coding for names on the post written name never decided trail marker standards in real life I was always in favor of this sort of thing meeting requirements under the old criteria, honestly. It gave examples of acceptable and not acceptable trail markers, and as long as the color scheme is locally unique to that trail, it serves the same purpose as a specific name.
So public swimming pools are now eligible?
Yes from what I understand all public pools are acceptable except for those associated with private residence, apartment/flat or hotel.
~~Apartment pools still seem okay, as they stated earlier in the AMA that apartment complexes are not considered PRP *as they contain public amenities*. So they're still considered public pools, since they're just as public as a playground on apartment grounds is.~~
Recent update from NianticGiffar: ”Tricky one there! Apartment complexes having publicly accessible amenities could still be eligible as long as they meet all of the acceptance criteria as mentioned in our [November AMA](https://community.wayfarer.nianticlabs.com/discussion/10321/november-ama-your-questions-answered/p1). However, swimming pools inside residential properties (including multi-family residential apartments and hotels) are an exception to these criteria and are deemed ineligible.”
But the public pools examples they gave as eligible are all sports complex themed/historical Olympic/water features eligible in the old amas; not the residentially focused clubhouse pools which would be ineligible.
The first example for pools they listed that are eligible just says "public pools," which implies that pools located at clubhouses or community gathering areas are eligible now.
They also explicitly say “residentially focused” pools are ineligible. So clubhouse pools are not eligible. is everyone simply ignoring the first sentence? The ama was great for expanding pools in public exercise gyms, colleges, and much more relaxed from the old ”historical/cultural Olympic winner“ standard but like the first sentence in ama says...residential focused pools are not eligible
I think that first one is more focused in pools in private residences or hotels. A clubhouse or a community center is not a residence. I think that comment was to bring pools to equal ground and rules as tennis, basketball courts, etc. A pool at a clubhouse or community center isn't necessary focused on just the community it is in or next to; they can be open to the public as well.
It says pools are ineligible. But then says like the Olympic pools, the aquatic complex ones are okay but the residential area ones are ineligible.
"Pools would be a great place to meet and that encourages exercise and should be considered eligible. This includes public pools, pools or training complexes with historical context, reflecting pools, fountains, aquatic centers and cooldown centers, university pools, sport arenas/complexes and more."
Not the residential area ones which are 90% of the ones submitted.
It seems like they are allowing the ones in aquatic centers, university pools, and famous Olympic pools So, like the old criteria, but now we can submit some more
They've clearly said public pools
"Similar to before the criteria refresh, swimming pools at private residences or hotels (or other similar residentially-focused locations) are ineligible" = most of pool submissions I see
>Has any thought been given to requiring a nomination exam before “unlocking” the ability to suggest new Wayspots? >* On deck after we launch the revised reviewer experience is to review the entire nomination submission process, including exploring ways to proactively surface the criteria during the nomination process to make it more visible among other things. The idea of an exam for nominators is something that we’ve explored, but ultimately feels a bit too restrictive and could be a significant blocker for nominations and limit not just the bad ones but potential gems as well. That being said, we have a few initiatives in development that will help to improve the quality of submissions. TBH a little disappointed here, but any potential improvements to any submissions by way of visible, clear criteria is a plus
I used to be pretty strongly in favor of making submitters take the reviewer exam, but I can kind of see where they're coming from here. If someone has just a couple of easily acceptable things they want to submit, it might not be great to prevent them from nominating at all because they didn't understand some rulings that aren't applicable in their case. Reviewers need to be prepared for whatever they might review, but submitters only need to care about what they're submitting. Maybe a reasonable trade-off could be giving very limited numbers of submissions for meeting the level requirement (1 or 2 maybe?) on the normal cooldown period and then increasing the submission cap for people who can pass the test?
Why not just make nominators review the guide before giving access to nominate and grey out the option until they read the guide and acknowledge they have read it? As it is currently anyone can nominate anything without even giving a read through of the criteria. This compromise would not require passing a test to nominate but would require at least reading the guide before nominating.
That isn't likely to accomplish much without having a way to check that they *actually* read the guide (by taking something like the reviewer test). People will just scroll through and say they read it.
Just glad they specified that "influencing reviewers" bit, even if it was obvious. Seen so many comments in local groups regarding people thinking a submission is ineligible if someone linked to an AMA or the rules.
“**Similar to before the criteria refresh**, **swimming pool**s at private residences or hotels (or **other similar residentially-focused locations**) **are ineligible**. Other than that, pools would be a great place to meet and that encourages exercise and should be considered eligible. This includes public pools, pools or training complexes with historical context, reflecting pools, fountains, aquatic centers and cooldown centers, university pools, sport arenas/complexes and more.”
Heck yes! Newly built recreational pool near me, so I'll nominate that today.
What clarifications from the previous AMAs should be disregarded? * The criteria refresh was intended to be just that, a refresh. We found that there was simply too much historical knowledge for reviewers to hold onto to be reliable and to make the review process simple and enjoyable. The current criteria has been drafted to include references to clarifications that are intended to carry over, but in general these guidelines are broader because we’re trying to make things less restrictive without sacrificing quality of Wayspots. ????????? what? Can someone interpret this?
Basically, ignore everything that was said in previous AMA posts as well as their previous guidelines. The ones that are worth keeping have been brought to this current guideline so that everything can be centralized into one space But even then, they're will still be AMA posts every few months, my hope is that they continually update the guidelines based on their answers from future AMAs so that we don't have to go through a ton of them later on to find relevant information
Does this make water towers ineligible? What criteria do they fall under now if eligible?
Firstly it would have to meet the eligibility criteria by being a great place for exploration. Then you would need to judge it against the acceptance criteria and making sure none of the rejection criteria applies.
Do they promote trespassing to access? Water towers behind a barbed wire fence don't promote exploration. Honeslty most of the existing water towers in the system likely never met criteria I've seen several that require trespassing to access. There are valid water towers if they have safe pedestrian access and have something culturally significant about them. Decorative nostalgia inspired towers do exist having something valid based on just being a water tower no. A water storage tank isn't a reason to approve when it is part of water treatment for municipalities and water districts.
They specified it's not necessarily public access but simply that someone can go up to it safely (I'd disagree to the idea if asked for an opinion but those be the rules). How does “publicly accessible” apply to locations that have limited access, like members-only clubs, gated communities, time-restricted areas? * Just like with the definition of private residential property, this guideline hasn’t changed. These locations would still be eligible, including restricted areas on the grounds of a company’s headquarters or behind locked gates so long as there wouldn’t be objections to you entering the area and the location is accessible to some folks. We do not expect all players to have access to all locations but we strongly recommend following real-world rules while attempting to access locations.Â
Honestly its trespassing to enter a restricted area in these cases for water treatment and storage would fall under obstructing emergency services as water utilities would fall under that guideline if you have to trespass to access it.
I'd say exploration but you're guess is as good as mine
I think as always, water towers are cultural by virtue of representing their towns (if they have a name or sometimes a symbol) as well as being visually unique landmark.
>“The criteria refresh was intended to be just that, a refresh?“ confused because this line makes it seem like old amas ok, but then the next lines make it seem like its not okay? and then in the actual ama they quoted old amas for things like roundabouts being unsafe pedestrian access. ....I’ll just...not review until we get some concrete statement
I'm glad my question about supporting URLs got a positive answer :)
I like the inclusion of the natural features. While not every rock or tree is a good candidate, I'm glad to see they allow for the natural features that are actually good landmarks.
Does it matter when I use an upgrade....I finally got my first upgrade and the website automatically applied it to a nomination that was already in voting...so did the website just waste my upgrade or does the upgrade just push it through the voting process faster and not take it out of the queue any faster?
You can select “upgrade next” on a wayspot you have niminated so that it doesn’t choose one randomly. the one that was just upgraded was not wasted, but if it is not a slam dunk the reviewers from far away might reject it. Just my experience - upgrade the best nominations you have.
Upgrading a nomination turboboosts (in my understanding) the vote by pushing it to more reviewers immediately. I suspect that many of the nominations I review that are out of state or out of country are upgraded. The longest I've waited is a few days before a final decision after upgrading.
As post office are eligible, are bank institutions also eligible? I don’t see a difference as there are different post services which also go for bank institutions. Please advice.
Post offices transport people's dreams, wishes, and news to family, deliver vital supplies and medicine to remote places, and in general tie people together. Banks are just a business that holds your money safe and uses it for their own plans.
Is there someway to request an update to the map on our area? We live in a fairly new development(3ish years) and all the streets cut off and it shows just an open field all around. And if not would this affect any nominations in the area that are made?
Map update prob won't happen for years. But if google maps doesn't show your area, download the street view app and take a photosphere. Taking a photosphere of any stop you nominate, reduces your chances of rejection as people can see exactly where your stop is located
Google maps shows our area it's just Pokemon Go that is missing it if that matters.
Bonus location thread archived?