駅の出入口、公園の出入口、その他のいろんな出入口などの一般的な出入口は基準を満たしますか。基準を満たさない感じがするのですが、満たす場合は何の基準で満たしますか。
Hello, “it depends” - I think this is very hard to generalize. It would maybe be easier with some screenshots of nominations you are reviewing or thinking of submitting that raise this question. There aren’t really many rules of thumb in Wayfarer outside of the hard ineligibility limits, it’s all context dependent.
Thinking a little further about the few examples you mentioned, I would not submit a train station and its entrance as this seems redundant. In many cases the entrance of an eligible location would be marked as its duplicate. I could be persuaded about the eligibility of various entrances into a large park as they fulfil distinct functions allowing people to explore the location through different routes but again, it very much depends what case the submitter makes here. These are super general considerations, they do not constitute criteria and do not account for the specific case (is this an architecturally important entrance of some kind? does it have some specific historic context as to how it was previously used? etc).
Moving this to General Discussion so that other people can chime in.
ということは公園の一般的なベンチを公園として審査のようなものなのか。
重複の話ということは1つの駅に複数のスポットのことなのか？重複されるほどの距離しか離れていないのであればそもそも1つの駅に複数も作らない方が良い。出入口を勝手に駅として審査する審査員はいないだろう。広いから複数なのであれば重複されないぐらいの距離はある方が良い。重複よりも勝手に基準不明な出入口と変更する方が変に思える。
Park entrances tend to have signage, making them much easier to nominate than the green grass in the park itself, as the sign helps to anchor the POI. This lends itself to allowing multiple entrances being separate POI and also means entrances without signage can be submitted (although harder to get accepted).
Sometimes, a park bench might be used as an anchor for a park that has no better anchor. It wouldn’t be automatically accepted.
Train stations, bus stations etc are a POI in themselves. The station entrance is not necessary to anchor the POI, so reviewers would need to evaluate the entrance as a POI /in its own right/. It’s hard to convince reviewers that a station entrance is worthy of exploration, is social or is good for exercise. For a large station, multiple POI might be suitable, but here it is likely there are things other than “just an entrance” that would work.
Entrances do not have their own standards. They are evaluated just as everything else is - exploration, social, exercise.
なぜ標識(公園など)から出入口としての申請となるのか。
The space inside a park, unless it has features such as playgrounds, outdoor gyms, basketball courts etc, is difficult to get accepted as a POI. This is the case now, but even more historically as “natural features” were explicitly rejected, which is no longer the case.
The same is true of allotments in the UK (community gardens) - they are hard to get accepted despite being generally seen as valid.
In both cases, anything that anchors the nomination helps. Signs are a definite anchor. You still get Scopely appeal reviewers saying something like “it would help this nomination if you could find something to anchor it, such as a sign”.
The sign is representing the park (or the allotment).
いや、そういうことじゃなくて、そのような公園の名前などの看板を看板だけの要素とは関係のない出入口として申請する人と承認する人がいるんよ。
I think that depends on case. Bigger park might have several entrance which might become wayspot.
その理由
具体的に
For bigger park, each entrance might be unique and distinct enough depending on its location. For smaller park this may not be the case. Anyway each case will be reviewed case by case
I think this is a translation issue, sorry - I am not talking about how the wayspots might be close to each other or not. This does not matter for Wayfarer at all whatsoever, if 2 eligible objects are 2mm from each other in real life, then so be it.
I am instead speaking about eligibility, and saying that among the 2 examples you provided, I don’t really frequently see a case for the separate eligibility of the train station entrance from the train station itself. Of course there are exceptions.
And if you don’t like park entrances or signs, you are personally absolutely not obliged to submit them, of course.
理由がそれについての内容の根拠になっていないぞ。
そのようなのであれば否認で宜しいでしょうか？
I live in Japan, so I understand. That tone is extremely rude.
You were supposed to be asking questions about things you didn’t understand. So why are you interrogating the people who answered with their opinions? Despite having a clear opinion that it is incorrect for there to be multiple Wayspots at each park and train station entrance, you took an attitude of asking questions about things you did not understand. You then interrogated those who held different opinions. Such an attitude is wrong. You should have started a thread to encourage discussion after stating your opinion. You should apologize for your rude attitude.
The issue you mentioned regarding entrances is ambiguous because Wayfarer does not provide specific details.
曖昧というか他の人からして勝手に出入口として審査の決まりとかの理由はどこかにあるやろ。
なのにどこから来た情報なのかがわからないことを記入して来る。理由が意味わからないため詳しいことを知りたい。標識とか大きいとかの理由だけではわからない。なぜその理由で出入口としての審査になるのかということなのですよ。