Parks in housing estates - good quality POI?

Hi,

What are your views on small housing estate parks areas as POI, when there is no signage, artwork/ built structure or easily defined focus that can be used to tether the submission?

I'm specifically interested in getting the community view on how to submit these, given that the new Wayer guide lists parks as high quality nominations.

Context: i am trying to submit a group of parks which are part of a new (5 years old) housing development, built on previously rural farmland. There area is very sparse and lacks typical good submission features that could fit in other categories. The only approved portals are a community centre and a community sign board 1/2 mile away.

As the parks are popular gathering spots for recreation and enjoyment of public spaces, they seem to fit as good candidates in my view. The group of park do lacks singular defining features but have built paths & fencing, are purposefully planted with flowers, bushes & lines of trees with central grassy areas, which are all managed and maintained by a team of contractors (eg not wild). There is a bench (I know, reject) and generic gates at the entrances to the parks (previously rejected). There is no art or objects that could qualify under other criteria.

I realise that these areas lack an easy to point at feature to submit, however I believe that park areas are still worthwhile submissions in their own right.

I figured to put the portal location in the middle of each park where laid paths converge, rather that at one end or another due to the size.

The local area is mostly mapped in street view but the Google car images are old and still show variously farmland, construction and the parks in an incomplete state.

I've uploaded a recent photosphere and view from outside the park boundary. In the submissions description and supporting text I detail when the parks were built and the history of the changes made, how they are used by the local community and how they are maintained by funding from the community (unfortunatly we can't get permanent park signs, it took 3 years to get the committee to fund adding the benches and gates...)

The submissions are being rejected as being natural features and once for being farms and sometimes being private land, which confuses me greatly as to what the reviewers could have been looking at. For clarity, these are communal public spaces, accessed from the streets and are definitely not anyones private land.

What are your thoughts? How can I improve my submissions for an area lacking strong alternative submission options? How do you submit an area as a POI?

I've added an example photo and street view link to help with your feedback

Thanks!

https://www.google.com/maps/@55.0295535,-1.6521633,3a,75y,20h,90t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sAF1QipO0JrBB7HzI_RQsArueBnVsT17uQtkD1mSf7GHh!2e10

Comments

  • GearGliderGearGlider ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited October 2019

    If you want to get a portal like that approved, you'll need a man-made feature to tie the portal to.


    There's no sign, so you won't be able to submit the park itself.


    If there's a playground, picnic shelter, gazebo, athletic field, community event board, trail markers, community garden sign, things like that, you could submit those.


    If it's just a grassy area with not much to it, I'm afraid you're out of luck.

  • Thanks for the feedback both.

    @oscarc1 , agreed that the park is grass & trees, however I don't agree that parks fit the definition for a natural feature, being that these type of parks are specifically built, landscaped and managed for the purpose of use as public space.

    There is no buzzword here, the definition comes from the guidance parks given on https://wayfarer.nianticlabs.com/help:

    Quoute from "What makes a good Wayspot?"

    In addition to using the above acceptance criteria, we often add nominations that are a special nod to industries and networks that connect people around the world. These include:

    • Public parks
    • Public parks are great, high-quality places for Wayspots: they are common all around the world and encourage players to walk, exercise and enjoy public spaces


    I contend that a park that purposefully built as part of a housing development seems to fit the criteria for a "network that connect[s] people" and does "encourage players to walk, exercise and enjoy public spaces"

    Thoughts?

  • oscarc1oscarc1 ✭✭✭✭✭

    You need to submit something that represents the park, ie. A sign with the name of the park.

    What differentiates your photo of a park to any other photo of a park? They all have grass, trees, footpaths, etc. There is nothing unique there. It might be constructed by man, but the subject of the photo itself is of natural features.

  • KliffingtonKliffington ✭✭✭✭✭

    I asked in the AMA but for now these are likely to be rejected

  • harkonnnenharkonnnen ✭✭✭✭

    Submissions are acceptable in housing estates, but a grass park won't come through unless there is something in the park that will be the POI e.g. playground, sculptor, gazebo, plaque etc. Being in a park makes those submissions high quality POI that should get quickly approved. Maybe a 360 sphere will be needed depending on satellite and street view


  • @oscarc1 Indeed, the lack of a defining singular focal point in these types of parks is what is driving my question here - how to effectively represent an area which not comprised of any specific unique features but the sum of it's parts can still be called culturally valuable?

    To give an extreme examples at the opposite end from the POI I am trying to submit, how would an area such as Times Square in New York be accepted were there no plaque? Without the sign, what makes those famous 'named' spaces any more or less worthy than another public space? How would you submit those area if there was no sign?


    Manyt thanks both, will watch for the AMA response with interest.


  • Thanks @harkonnnen , unfortunately the only specific feature in the parks that can be readily pointed at are generic benches, and I'm pretty sure that dead horse is well and truely flogged at this point :p

  • oscarc1oscarc1 ✭✭✭✭✭

    That's a good question @Taziir. Primarily, you submit an object, not a space.

    If there is a sign that says "Times Square" you submit that to represent the space that is Times Square.

    A portal needs to be anchored to a specific point on the map. If you submit a space such as a park or Times Square, you could place it anywhere within its reasonable boundaries. A singular, defined object is always going to have its own defined location within that space

    Therefore, as others have already stated, you can submit the playground, plaques, gazebos, etc. As they are unique man-made objects that are within the community gathering space, it's those objects that promote gathering as it gives people something to do. A park might be a community gathering area, but how do you define that entire area into a single location anchor? Unless there is a sign to represent that park, you can't. The same applies for Times Square.

  • Thanks @oscarc1 , it seems like the solution for the area is to pressure the local committe to add some kind of signage to define parks.

  • harkonnnenharkonnnen ✭✭✭✭

    I do feel you on that one, I have some fantastic parks I can take my dog to run free and before ingress/pogo i loved the uninterrupted nature. But now I'm like geez can we get a few gazebos, maybe some part nature info boards etc

  • If your neighborhood park has no sign, it's just pretty landscaping. If there's a playground, walkway gazebo, etc. those would make it easier to get portals.

  • A lot of awesome places that would make great portals can't be because there's no man made object to anchor it to. You could try using the benches but I doubt they pass. If so definitely mention lack of sign

  • There is a very nice little park near me that has benches, picnic tables, etc. but no sign. It definitely looks far more man-made than the average soccer field. It is an official city-owned and run park and is designated by its name on Google Maps (this was not something that anybody added to aid in its submission; it presumably happened during the normal course of business labeling Google Maps). However, it has no sign, so it goes nowhere in OPR. It's kind of silly that a simple, crummy sign would make turn a quick rejection into an immediate acceptance, but I also understand the need to "anchor" a portal someplace.

    That said, there is another park near me that is basically a small chunk of land that doesn't even have basic man-made amenities (e.g. benches, picnic tables, etc.) that was approved. The submitter did an excellent job talking about its long and interesting history, which probably made a difference. (This was only possible because of the long description field available in Redacted.)

  • kholman1kholman1 ✭✭✭✭

    Did Krug not state parks did not have to have a sign? I swore he said something to that fact?

  • I know it came up with athletic fields/basketball courts before. From what I recall qualifying POIs don't have to have a sign, but they DO have to have something man made to mark the POI.

    The potential problem with these neighborhood parks without signs is that there isn't anywhere to flag representing the park. Without a sign, there is no appropriate marker for these parks. The benches would be a huge long shot if that's all you've got to nominate it with.

  • I know it came up with athletic fields/basketball courts before. From what I recall qualifying POIs don't have to have a sign, but they DO have to have something man made to mark the POI.

    The potential problem with these neighborhood parks without signs is that there isn't anywhere to flag representing the park. Without a sign, The benches would be a huge long shot.

  • I know it came up with athletic fields/basketball courts before. From what I recall qualifying POIs don't have to have a sign, but they DO have to have something man made to mark the POI.

    The potential problem with these neighborhood parks without signs is that there isn't anywhere to flag representing the park. Without a sign, The benches would be a huge long shot.

  • In my example I've had rejections when trying to submit the bench as the POI as well, although that was in redacted and I had no idea about photospheres at the time.

    I'll retry the bench and use the supporting statement to explain the context and lack of any better quality anchor points.

    Thanks for all the thoughtful responses :)

  • KliffingtonKliffington ✭✭✭✭✭

    I would just use your submissions for other things for now and hope the AMA question gets answered

  • oscarc1oscarc1 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Taziir What's the significance of the bench? The bench doesn't represent the park, or a community gathering space, it's just a seat. Generic, not unique, not significant, not culturally significant. As the above person suggested, best not to bother wasting your submissions.

  • Yeah, the bench itself is nothing special and is about as generic as they come. The idea was to use it as the anchor for the whole park's POI, due to the lack of a permanent sign.

    Hopefully these type of scenarios can be addressed in the AMA to give clarity

  • McReesingtonMcReesington ✭✭
    edited October 2019

    Reviewers go by a sign, but I heavily disagree with it. Niantic defines parks themselves as the quality POI - the presence of a sign doesn't make something a clearly-obvious park or not. Some large, scenic parks which are clearly viewable on google maps, without a sign, are rejected, while inaccessible overgrown areas with a broken sign which still says park somewhere on it are quickly accepted.

Sign In or Register to comment.