What are some OPR Candidate Ratings Guidelines you personally disagree with?

So we as reviewers follow the OPR Guidelines to the best of our abilities (theoretically), but are there any that you think should be different or disagree with?

I know a lot of people (not myself) dislike how Playgrounds are a suggested 5-star candidate. Citing how it's equipment for children and don't want agents skulking around them.

Another one I know is disliked by people is Gravestones of important individuals in Cemeteries, with reason being a place of mourning isn't a place to be having fun playing a video game.

I also know a lot of people who dislike how many Memorial Plaques or other object dedicated to person(s) are given a suggested low-rating unless a notable member of the community. Reasoning that a Memorial is visually distinctive and at least has value to those who put it up.

Are there any other common guidelines that are commonly disputed by agents?



  • JosmanuJosmanu ✭✭✭
    edited September 2019

    the guidelines i dislike are the people create for then ignore the niantic guidelines just because in their own subjective pov they feel the necessity to do whatever they want and deny/approve stuff not bassed in guidelines...because in the end is not if you like it or not, just because you work for free isnt an excuse to ignore and create your own because if you were getting paid for damn sure you wouldnt argue this stuff

    Those are the guidelines i dislike because that is one of the main reasons with problems in opr and why so much accepted/denied stuff which create more backlog with people having to send 3 times the same god damn poi just for mention 1

  • I don't have a problem with the guidelines, I have a problem with the voters who ignore the guidelines and vote 1* on playgrounds, trail markers and athletic fields because in their opinion, they don't belong.

  • KliffingtonKliffington ✭✭✭✭✭

    Not happy about Military bases being 1* regardless of if it interferes with operations but I accept that that's what they decided.

  • Playgrounds are fine. Think more than ingress - Pokemon Go has thousands and thousands of found players. An agent can hack and cap a portal without looking like a ****.

    I have issues with cemetaries, except for hisotric ones that are no longer in 'active' use.

  • RostwoldRostwold ✭✭✭✭✭

    I think there should be a degree of leniency for areas that are boring. I live on a modern, very dull estate, there are no decent portal candidates here, Should I be penalised for not living somewhere more interesting?

    I understand Niantic want to build a database of POIs to sell, but that wouldn't preclude them from adding a category for places that are not interesting, but encourage gameplay, and simply stripping those out if/when they sell the POI database to other companies.

    Obviously this would risk couch portals... how about letting us define an area on a map as 'boring housing' and then placing a portal at a random road junction within it?

  • Then create something interesting. Contact your local community, put signs in parks, commission or make your own statue, paint a mural yourself or by contacting an artist, etc.

  • RostwoldRostwold ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited September 2019

    That's good advice, but sadly the estate is owned by a corporation that sets very tight rules on what we can do. We have no park (unless you count two patches of grass smaller than my house) and I cannot build a garden wall, grow most types of plant or even change the colour of my front door, let alone put up a statue - especially not one that would not be excluded from OPR because it's on my own land!

Sign In or Register to comment.