OPR Revisions

Two suggestions I have for OPR submission candidates

Is there any way to have a 1* refusal category for "natural signs"? We know you are not allowed to submit a natural feature (such as a mountain or a river) but I feel like many agents are bending the rules by submitting a sign discussing the formation of the mountain or the fish species in the river. Worse many of these pointless signs are being accepted in game as portals

Is there any way to add an option for a similar portal? We have a 1* option for duplicated portal but again many people are bending rules by submitting very similar portals as unique portals (eg baseball diamond 1, baseball diamond 2, baseball diamond 3). Some parks are way too dense portal wise after this



  • Yet you argue picnic areas, boat ramps and piers are not valid..... smh. Oh we are okay with thousand of informational signage that is temporary but nothing actual fixed and permanent.

  • cmonineedanamecmonineedaname ✭✭✭✭
    edited October 2019

    @GodZillaz88 you might want to read over the portal criteria page, OPR guide, help, and FAQ pages too. Signs for natural features are specifically mentioned as portal-worthy candidates. Absolutely no rule bending about it.

    Also density is only a problem in your mind. You're supposed to, in effect, ignore other portals after verifying that it's not the EXACT same POI. Baseball field A is not Baseball Field B and both can be portals.

  • **** are you talking about?

    The OPR clearly and literally says: "Candidates where the photo is of natural features (Includes pictures of landscapes as well as submissions where the subject is a lake, river, stream, mountain, volcano, waterfall, etc.; photos that include man-made points of interest - plaques, signs, etc. - near natural features are acceptable)."

    Not boat ramp or electrics tower lol

  • I imagine Eddie Izzard on OPR. "Do you have a siiiign?"

  • If Park has 4 baseball diamonds arranged in a way that they are all directly next to each other (esp since most have homeplates at centre and then fields extend outwards) it seems super redundant to me to have 4 portals for each baseball diamond.

    The agent could easily have set 1 portal equidistant from all 4

    This also is happening in playgrounds, I see agents submitting the slide, the swings, the gazebo/rest area, the splash pad, the signage etc

    So a tiny playground ends up with density as heavy as a downtown loop

    I do see the comment about "man made poi around a natural feature" but I have always interpreted this as requiring something manmade

    eg I accept the Bioswales despite being natural as long as they had a sign

    But I refuse to believe that a "natural Salmon spawning bed" in any way qualifies (despite the OPR FAQ / Guide). There must be a way to send feedback as I wish to change the following section below

    From the Guide:

    • Candidates where the photo is of natural features (Includes pictures of landscapes as well as submissions where the subject is a lake, river, stream, mountain, volcano, waterfall, etc.; photos that include man-made points of interest - plaques, signs, etc. - near natural features are acceptable).

  • Oh and also; scenario #2

    In a small park people are submitting multiple portals for north / east / south / west signs

    So the exact same sign (visually) but fronting on every street

    I have been accepting these but I feel some people are really overdoing it

  • GearGliderGearGlider ✭✭✭✭✭

    I accept them, I feel like it's similar to the reasoning for trailheads/markers, except it's a marker for the park.

  • AgentB0ssAgentB0ss ✭✭✭✭✭

    Each of those 4 baseball fields is a valid portal. The splash pad, the playground, a sign, trail head, trail markers, all in the park are no less important as a portal than the next one. Why limit others opportunities to enjoy the area, it might be different than your own. Each thing should be acceptable in its own right of course.

  • But then explain to me WHY it is different?

    If I submit a Church then submit the Church Sign (at road) it gets rejected (and validly so) as a duplicate because so close together

    If I submit a Rec Centre and then submit the Sign which is rather far away it is a reject

    So WHY is it valid to claim 4 Baseball Diamonds that are all beside each other? As per Niantic AMA when the portals are BESIDE each other they should be rejected or flag as a dupe

    Same diff with submitting a Park + Splash Pad or multiple Trail Signs

    They clearly said distance apart is a factor

  • Portal Density (& distance apart) is def a valid factor

    As an example I quoted above, submitting the actual Church Building then submitting the large street Signage with Cross is denied because too close together

    So why would multiple duplicate items (eg 4 Baseball Diamond, 2 Basketball Courts, 2 Tennis Courts) where they are literally right beside each other be ok?

  • KliffingtonKliffington ✭✭✭✭✭

    Should I consider proximity to nearby Wayspots when analyzing a nomination?

    No. As long as the nomination is not a duplicate of an existing Wayspot, it is eligible to become a Wayspot. 

    Should I take nearby Wayspot density into account when analyzing a nomination?

    As long as Wayspots aren't duplicates of one another and meet our acceptance criteria, they can be densely packed together. Some Wayspots may be filtered out if necessary.

  • KliffingtonKliffington ✭✭✭✭✭

    Note the word *and* when talking about submitting as a unit.

    Objects installed in a series - Objects installed in a series can be submitted as a group or individually, depending on the distance between them. If they are relatively close together and share a single sign, consider them as a single Wayspot, but please ensure that the objects are in fact related before nominating. If they are relatively far apart, consider them as multiple Wayspots. 

    Multiple fields aren't a series.

  • AgentB0ssAgentB0ss ✭✭✭✭✭

    You may want to consider that you wouldn't submit a Baseball Diamond and a Sign for the Baseball Field as they both represent the same exact POI. However, 4 different Baseball Fields are 4 different POI. So a church and a church sign represent the same overall "Waypoint". Now Niantic has clarified if they are significant distance that a church sign and a church would both be eligible.

  • More poi in parks? The horror!

  • GearGliderGearGlider ✭✭✭✭✭

    Where has this church and church sign thingy been clarified? I am interested.

  • Svizac28Svizac28 ✭✭
    edited December 2019

    I agree with OP. I see on Wayfarer many nominations which are not really duplicates but things that are already covered by existing portals. I call them pseudo-duplicates.

    Example1, if there is a portal "Football Club Sloboda", than there is really no need to submit "FC Sloboda Football Field" or "FC Sloboda outdoor gym"

    Example2, if there is a portal "St.Michael Church", no need to submit "Statue in front of St.Michael Church" or "Belltower of St.Michael Church" as the first portal already coveres entire church area.

    I believe the quality of POIs is really important. Next time you're going to approve a portal ask yourself this: What is the purpose of this portal? What can anyone learn from it? Why is it interesting for people to visit?

  • @Svizac28 I would further add I wish Niantic would FORCE reviewers to catagorize portals as well

    That way pseudo-duplicates as you term them can be filtered very easily should Niantic wish to (eg more density for PoGO less density for Ingress) as well as would eliminate reviewers allowing portals that should never be allowed (eg Fire Stations; I do not care how far away from driveway a portal candidate is.... having 20 PoGO players parking in a line to Raid would certainly obstruct the Fire Engines)

  • Why on earth would you want less density for ingress???

  • TheFarixTheFarix ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited December 2019

    There is a general opinion by some Ingress agents that more portals in a given area will only make it more difficult to create big area fields (BAFs) without any strategic gain. Their view is that with more portals, casual agents are more likely to throw "derp links".

  • Haha if they need no portals to BAF they need to git his.

Sign In or Register to comment.