Additional Information (if any): The Not Accepted contribution gives no reason as to why it was rejected, yet the other entrance was accepted. They are two separate entrances and listed as such. I’m not sure why a non-upgraded contribution would get rejected with no reason. Is anyone able to tell me why it was rejected? I’m fine if there’s a valid reason for denying it but then the other contribution should have also been rejected. I’m just really confused on the inconsistency and would appreciate any light that someone could shed to help me understand.
Sometimes it can take a bit for the rejection reason to show up. Try refreshing the page, then logging out and back in if that doesn’t work.
If it still doesn’t have a rejection reason, staff have explained that this can happen if there are too many reasons selected for the system to pick just one.
The main difference is that the upgraded nomination was reviewed by a much larger pool of reviewers, these kind of nominations are difficult to get accepted, but sometimes local reviewers understand the local importance of the proposed wayspot and will be more likely to approve it.
From my perspective, without a very good explanation why cottages are a good wayspot, I would probably reject it. Also I would consider the signs duplicates, as usually the main object is the Wayspot, and a sign will act as a proxy for the main object.
Edit: as @salixsorbus pointed out, in this case the wider pool approved it, so either the local reviewers had a different opinion, or classified it as a duplicate
I see place name signs approved all over the country, so I’m a little confused on it being borderline. It seems to be the standard in other states.
I feel like having to guess on why it was rejected doesn’t make me a better contributor.
I’m still really just trying to make sense of what I should try to contribute in the future. Right now it feels kinda random. It sounds like even though there’s tons of place name signs that they should not be nominated?
It’s all about encouraging Exercise, being Social or Exploration.
Always think about how your POI encourages one of these. It is very hard for a place name sign, which has no artistic value, to pass this check.
Very few people are excited to find place name signs, so exploration fails.
No place name sign anywhere helps with exercise, so exercise fails
Very few people outside of Pogo choose to stand at a place name and socialise with others, so social fails.
Some place name signs have something that makes them stand out, mostly from an artistic perspective. Most you see in Pogo are accepted because the community has decided it wants more pokestops. This is understandable in the suburban deserts (*) in the USA (and Canada to some extent), as there can be large expanses of housing with nothing that meets criteria.
Idealistically I think your answer makes a lot of sense. And I agree that don’t do something just because someone else does it.
I think if that ideal view of waypoints was taken and existing points were re-reviewed then a significant amount would go away making the game less playable so in my mind it comes down to playability and reasonableness. I’m fine with more “borderline” waypoints so that the games are more fun to play. If I had to walk or drive miles to get between waypoints then I’d find another hobby. I currently drive 25 minutes in a very population dense are to the closest Ambassador meetup due to the best density of waypoints/gyms and people, if it was in my neighborhood, I’d play more events. I don’t really see Pokemon Go as a game to get me out exploring the world, but more as a way to get me walking outside doing something fun (more of a local type thing), but I’m sure others have different opinions and that’s fine.
Out of curiosity, how do we explain the campsites that are just random ambassador locations that have no significance?
I appreciate your responses to help me understand and don’t think I’ll appeal the rejection.
The campsites are outside of the scope of wayfarer, but generally you will find these in parks and other places with a large number of players, with the extra pokestops significantly enhancing the player experience in those locations. This is, after all, what the Pogo ambassadors are for
A campsite in a random location of no interest should be unusual.
I’m in the UK, but have some experience of USA surburban areas and have looked round enough on aerial (etc) images to see the almost complete lack of anything interesting in some areas, so I understand why people stretch boundaries in order to find things.
Another from the UK. If a company puts in planning for a new build housing estate it will usually be Rejected if the don’t include amenities such as Green Spaces, Play Parks etc. These are where POI’s are normally found in these areas.
We also get more “mixed use” areas so we will get shops and maybe a pub on larger developments.
My (extremely) small knowledge of some places in the USA is that land is designated as “Residential” and no extra amenities are required therefor less chance of Points of Interest.
Yep that’s mostly true. I think it depends mostly on your local supervisor/government and what they ask or require developers to offer, but for the most part it’s a lot of just houses. I live in a big neighborhood with small parks sprinkled in which helps but some developments are much better than others for POIs and some are worse. I feel like the older ones have less green spaces/parks and the newer ones seem to have at least one kids play area or common space or more depending on the size.
therefor less chance of Points of Interest.