Portal Criteria guide update

Hi, this thread is directed to anyone at NIA who might be reading along:

There have been many alterations to the 'official' portal criteria Guide (accessed from OPR site) through AMAs and other cases that might have created precedents to accept or reject candidates. I feel the Guide is severely outdated, and was wondering if it isn't time for a complete overhaul, now that Pokestop Nominations getting deployed around the world.

We are aware of the 'What makes a good <POI>"-information intended for the submitters. But as a reviewer with some experience, I notice many grey areas, with contradicting or missing (from Guide/FAQ) guidelines as main culprit. The AMAs are of great value in this case, but statements don't get entered into the Guide.

I really hope this is being worked on, as clarity is of great help to OPR reviewers who'll probably get busier with the incorporating of Nominations into other games, and who really seem to to want a correct 'game board'.

Comments

  • JeroenixJeroenix ✭✭✭

    Hi, thanks for mentioning this in the forum, that document is invaluable especially to new reviewers (at least, that's my experience). Credits to this go to Rosie M. and other helpers. I've been helping to keep it up to date in the past few months when there were still AMA's, so I know it well :)

    But what I would like, is that NIA update the official guide, because not everyone will find the document or Reddit articles or anything else scattered around. Also, it couldn't hurt to minimize the contradicting stuff. In other words: update ;)

    The sheet in question can also be found when googling keywords: ingress portal criteria sheets

    Then, first Reddit article.

  • MicksterMickster ✭✭✭

    I would like to see a a more definitive criteria of "Private" and "Public" Property. Also "Safe Pedestrian Access" , "Generic Businesses" and just what a "Fountain " is .

    There are Regional differences , of course (Europeans don't believe in sidewalks for example) .

    This would make it easier for those who are submitting portals, and those that are reviewing them. And of course, why they are invalid, and have been removed.

  • QwizicalQwizical ✭✭✭

    Any criteria will never be able to cover everything globally but we should be able to use our common sense.

    Specifically I want to see "anything that encourages exercise" added to the criteria. Outdoor gyms, indoor gyms, trail markers, football pitches etc.

  • MicksterMickster ✭✭✭


  • LemoMcLemonFaceLemoMcLemonFace ✭✭✭✭

    Private / public property is not part of the criteria.

    An exclusion exists for 'private residential property', example, a person's house.

    Safe pedestrian access, you have to be able to walk up to, and stand near to the object without risk or fear of harm.

    For example, a tidal lighthouse that can be walked up to during low tide = safe.

    An object you would have to get a boat to, and stay on the boat to interact with, would be classed as unsafe (read up on red Sands forts, many of us believe that met safety criteria, but NIA disagreed)

  • When do we get rid of Condominium/rowhouse Playgrounds or arboretums which has every plant submitted as they have sign next to it???

    Thinking 'What makes a good <POI>" definition. Condominium/rowhouse areas are in someway public and depending country also private property. Also normally somekind of fence is going around the property In RL do you go hangging with your kids to public playground or Condominium/rowhouse playground?? From my opinion it's not good Point of Interest and i would not like extra people hanging around.

    And those Arboretums?? I'm aware that Natural features are no no unless "does not include man-made points of interest - plaques, signs, etc. - near natural features)." So there is birch and spruce and because those has sign with name and latin name. It's then approved. I would accept tree etc. with sign it has some historic value or has meaning to community. There is too many grey areas on some clear cases where simple change would clarify criteria more.

    As we are talking now POI's so why not try to clarify criterias based on that. "Why this makes a good Point Of Interest?"

  • I disagree with excluding playgrounds in condo complexes. I wouldn't say they're "OMG" 5 star quality, but 3-4 star quality for sure. It's not about how many people gather there, or how many people should/could access them (in the event the community is gated), either. And private property exclusion only counts when it's a private residence, not the community as a whole. These little playgrounds encourage people to get outdoors and exercise. I think they're better than fast food playgrounds, at least.

    I will agree on the tiny "Tree Name" "Plant Name" signs/plaques when all they have on them is the name being poor candidates. The larger variety of signs/plaques that serve to educate with more detail and describe their role in nature make good candidates, IMO, however.

  • StultuszStultusz ✭✭✭

    I would also appreciate an update of the official guide, namely including Community Noticeboards somewhere. My OPR community denies them every single time and refuse to look anywhere else other than the guide.

    The guide could, on itself, also link to a live/"more info", easily updated, post of this forum where the AMA clarifications would be readily available for everyone.

  • ZaltysZaltys ✭✭✭
    edited August 2019

    Condominium and rowhouse playgrounds are solidly in the private category here in Nordic. Doesn't matter if the playground is used by a single family or a small number of families that shares it, they're privately owned and privately maintained. Unlike park playgrounds and such, which are owned and maintained by the municipality and meant for public use.

    As such, the current guidelines don't make much sense to the players over here. The general line of thought is that all private playgrounds should either be universally allowed or disallowed. Instead of this arbitrary "some private playgrounds are okay, depending on how many families use them".

    Cultural differences. That makes it difficult to write rules that work globally.

  • KliffingtonKliffington ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited August 2019

    They aren't for you, they're for the people in that community. It doesn't matter if you can't access them but the residents of the community can. That's what niantic means by private single family homes (only that family can use it and restrict access) vs communal spaces in neighborhoods (any one of the multiple homes in the neighborhood can use it). There's nothing cultural about it.

    Also going to post my favorite Krug response again:

    A158: A place where members of the community can gather outside of their homes. A congregation point with something Portal worthy at the location. I don't understand the over analyzing of this topic besides people being unhappy that an apartment complex has a playground in the middle with a portal they can't access are upset about it. People need to stop over analyzing things and making mountains out of molehills. There is really too much in life to legitimately get worked up about beyond whether or not you can access a playground portal or not. I wish people would devote 1/10th the energy to a charitable act that they do arguing about playgrounds and military bases in Ingress.

  • ZaltysZaltys ✭✭✭
    edited August 2019

    Everyone can access them, that's the problem. We have no gated communities here. It's just polite to not to go traipsing around in someone elses' yard.

    But when a communal playground gets submitted, suddenly there's a crowd of noisy strangers coming and going at all hours. Causing danger to children and pets with their vehicles, blocking emergency routes, taking up parking space and benches, spreading trash everywhere, and causing all other kinds of trouble.

    The people living in those communities do not want the portals to be added, so you can't claim that it's 'for them'. Like I said, cultural differences.

  • KliffingtonKliffington ✭✭✭✭✭

    How do you know there isn't a player or players in that community that appreciates the portal? I've seen a crowd of over a hundred PoGo players at a portal and they left the area just as they found it. Encourage your community to be respectful of their surroundings. If everyone is allowed to access it than there isn't a reason for them to not be there. You're making mountains out of molehills. The property owners can request takedowns if they don't want them there. But the guidelines say to accept so as an OPR Agent your job is to accept.

  • Yeah, I’ve suggested via direct email and in every forum I can think of that Niantic go through all the AMAs and come up with a comprehensive guide that breaks down the basic categories we have now and then every more specific thing in each category. Then, to enforce and maintain standards in OPR, throw in random test submissions(mostly things that are 5 star candidates that people frequently 1 star). For every one you get wrong you get an email letting you know what you did wrong. Get 5 wrong and no more OPR for you.

  • kholman1kholman1 ✭✭✭✭

    This sounds so biased and made up. Considering playgrounds at non K-12 schools get approved all the time in the U.S. I don't see it being a problem except for the one nosey neighbor which anything can get under their skin as irritating. I have not seen people trashing playgrounds and honestly they are just used for stops and portals they aren't there all day gawking at the children. Also parents play harry potter or pogo with their kids in the park. This is another attempt at gatekeeping.

  • JSteve0JSteve0 ✭✭✭


    Not sure why fast food playgrounds are considered inferior. They are in public gathering spaces and they encourage tikes to run around and climb just like playgrounds in parks or condo complexes.

  • kholman1kholman1 ✭✭✭✭
    edited August 2019

    because it is obvious a few people have to high of standards same people that complain when voting on athletic fields or courts. I think some agents have this mentality a portal is supposed to be something that is an eye catcher of uniqueness or something historical and ignore that not all portals are meant to have a totally visual appeal is supposed to be just outstandingly artistic.

  • JosmanuJosmanu ✭✭✭

    regarding to that, i think is because niantic wants that kind of fast food chains or other kind of stores like (this is why only hotlocal spots stores or restaurant are only eligible because most of the time they are unique not a chain) however they want them to them to pay niantic as sponsored places, just like happen in pokemon go with mcdonalds, starbucks, malls, sprint, some banks, and in japan even machines are pokestops

    So in my pov isnt that they are inferior, is just niantic aim to get sponsor money for pokemon go

  • kholman1kholman1 ✭✭✭✭
    edited August 2019


    You completely are off the point. They said no to the corporate logo or name of the portal being the place of business. They are fine with a playground as it meets criteria. That is why people are getting angry agents are not taking the time to vote instead just assume because it is at a corporate business it is a 1* I have gotten a portal approved at a mc donalds a mural inside the lobby so they aren't always invalid. It is basically can you find another acceptable criterion. Krug would have flat out said no to doing chain playgrounds if they did not want them. He was saying don't submit the business or corporate logo or insignias. Now the reason people submitting starbucks murals inside the stores are getting slapped down is the fact they are submitting mass produced art for the company. This is different. Not to mention we already have Mc Donald's portals in certain areas such as Roswell New Mexico. I also got a sonic drive in playground in a rural area approved too. Basically we have approved corporate art at chain food places that is visually unique what is so different about McDonalds not to mention finding playplaces has gotten harder in recent years as some McDonalds are opting to remove them instead of replacing them when they do a full rebuild when remodeling. So if my community approves a horse carousel corporate art object at a red robin what is difference than it being a mc donalds playground? Yes this is a double standard I have seen locally. I have seen where sponsors have a stop or a gym in the same building as a mural next to it submitting a portal now is not going to disrupt any future sponsorship.

  • JosmanuJosmanu ✭✭✭
    edited August 2019

    cant be completely out of the point if its something that niantic wants...which is sponsored places for pogo, if that place goes as portal, it will become pokestop hence the chain or corporation wont need to pay for sponsor because they would already have the pokestop in their place

    that is just one thing, one reason, can have others and opr is very subjective place too, so many agents no longer follow guidelines since no proper supervision from niantic

  • KliffingtonKliffington ✭✭✭✭✭

    What the other agent is saying is that Niantic has said things at chain restaurants CAN BE APPROVED if they fit criteria (historic, playgrounds, unique art) so they are not trying to keep pokestops out of those places so they can get sponsorship deals.

  • JosmanuJosmanu ✭✭✭
    edited September 2019

    i typed too much so i short it up

    Those kind of chain restaurants that can be approved if they fit the criteria is about the criteria itself, which is local hotspots or a historic local shop/restaurant/hotel/etc not about a chain fast food like mcdonalds or starbucks or 7eleven or etc, those places are aimed to be sponsored places now for pogo because niantic saw that ''opportunity'', like happen in mcdonalds in japan, 7eleven in japan, banks in south korea, malls in europe, starbucks and sprint in usa, etc

    but not in all countries this happen since is managed by regions by the companies not globally, that is why you dont see mcdonalds from latin america to be pokestops, but as soon latin america mcdonalds says ''ok niantic iam paying you, put my latin america mcdonalds as pokestops too'' then it will happen that is why you dont see mcdonalds in latin america approved or niantic wanting to be approved (that is clearly hinted in the guidelines), are big chains that can pay and arent really that interesting for be considered as a point of interest no matter if they have a cool playground for kids and is visited by lot of fast food consumers

    Post edited by Josmanu on
  • KliffingtonKliffington ✭✭✭✭✭

    Yeah I'm not seeing your point here im sorry. I think you misunderstood what the original agent was saying.

  • kholman1kholman1 ✭✭✭✭

    clearly you missed the point. Yes we do have portals approved at these places you mentioned if they fit other criteria. You point of view is very skewed. It really depends on the agents voting but a lot do not understand something can be corporate and be valid even the guidelines says so but as long as it meets a guideline. Corporate art is valid in some cases too but do not submit the burger king or mc donalds as portal as in the sign or the building but a unique mural or a playground is in criteria for approval.

  • if you mean that it all depends in the end of what agents in the opr vote..then yes, opr is very subjective and since has no proper supervision from niantic in the end ANYTHING can be approved as well denied, that is very well known and has happened since the beggining but since ingress alone didnt put a lot of income in portals it wasnt so obvious, but now with the high ammount of candidates in the queue is more clear

Sign In or Register to comment.