@NianticCasey Could you provide some insight on this question.
Should activity centers who’s primary function is to serve youth under 18 be eligible? Currently the guide only mentions primary and secondary schools.
The debate is over scouts/cadets meeting locations.
Ok so if I put it this way. If I'm a pogo player and tomorrow I submit a cadets and i have never seen later years AMA because its something niantic hasnt showed me is it still bad.
Are the PoGo players as a disadvantage absolutely, and while they don’t know they shouldn’t be submitting and approving doesn’t mean it’s correct. Niantic does need to update the guide with additional clarification.
ill go back to my example, earlier, you can break a rule without even knowing it exists. I am not saying it’s their fault but the AMA still exist and still are valid source material.
All that happened is the name changed from OPR to Wayfarer, they didn't just chuck out all the old guidelines and ignore the old AMA's
Just because the process for reviewing POI's has had a name change does not instantly mean they have changed their acceptance criteria to now accept POI's that were previously invalid.
Infact there are a couple of threads on here where @NianticCasey has referenced the old AMAs as being vaild currently.
If we were instructed to reject certain POI's before, then that instruction is still valid, until and unless Niantic state otherwise.
That's all I asked in the first place. But if people have no access to any of this information and there own guidelines clearly state no schools or daycares then why are they not acceptable.
And yes I have submitted scouts and cadets why because there are scout and cadet halls already in. Does that make it wrong no because I haven't had access to AMAs until recently. Can I find these AMAs no because there in a years worth of posts and I dont have time to go back and check.
Yes, just because the submitter may not have seen the AMA, does not mean that a submission is allowed to be approved against the reviewing guidelines.
Should the submission guidelines have been improved to include all the previous AMA's, undoubtedly yes.
Its not the submitters fault they have no idea they are submitting something that is invalid if it is not covered by the submission guide, however that does not automatically mean that anything not in that guide should be accepted if reviewers have already been told to reject such candidates
Ok so let me try it this way on the flip side a pogo player is reviewing a portal like cadets and they go by the guidelines. They have no access at the moment to this board I'm guessing (only a guess) and they all accept it is it then bad? Should they have known something that they have no access to?
This is why Wayfarer is completely different to OPR and OPR is now irrelevant, and the old guidelines dont really matter.
I talked this over internally and we had quite the discussion about the nuances of this. There's a lot of different ways that this could be sliced when considering the guideline around K-12 schools and wayspots on school grounds.
Where we landed was here: If they’re full-time Cadet or Scount buildings where the primary purpose is gathering of people in the K-12 age range with a membership component, it would be considered similar to a private daycare center and ineligible. However, if it’s a public gathering place that’s occasionally used for Scout or Guide meetings, then yes it would be eligible like a playground where kids can gather but also are publicly accessible without a membership.
That's still not clear to me, for the same reason that I actually asked about this in the recent AMA that as far as I know the answers haven't been published yet. Who owns the building is not necessarily any guide to percentage of time that it is used by Scouts and Guides. My local Scout Hut is used by Scout groups for only about 6 hours a week, all on a Sunday, and is actually used for more hours by local dog training groups. There are community centres that under that answer people will consider "more eligible" which are used by multiple Scout and Guide groups and used for those purposes for more hours in a week. If the aim is to reduce the number of portals on places that are primarily used for child-based groups then surely some kind of evidence of usage of the community hall is more relevant than who the title deeds say it belongs to
Maybe I’m missing something, but It seemed pretty clear to me. Casey didn’t say anything about ownership being the driving factor. It sounds like exclusive (or near-exclusive use) is. So your examples sound like they would likely fall under the “public gathering place also used sometimes for scout meetings” category.
@pokestophope I actually am working with @RedSoloCup on the AMA answers right now and saw your question.
The spirit of this guideline is twofold:
Make sure that the wayspot is publicly accessible and/or not requirement special membership or permissions to be able to access
Make sure that the primary purpose of a building is not for young people.
In the examples that you cited, a building that restricts access to members of the Scout group but whose primary purpose is a meeting space not necessarily for children wouldn't be eligible. However, if it were just a general community hall that happened to host Scout meetings occasionally, as long as it didn't require special membership to access, it would be eligible.
I think they're trying allow us to get as many spots to play in as possible but they don't want get a call from the property owners about trepassing or interrupting normal functions of the place. Obviously follow whatever guidance they give us at the AMA but if you have a spot that technically qualifies but you know they already have issues with people trepassing or parking illegally probably not a good idea to submit.
It's a pretty big departure from previous guidelines where access does not need to be for everyone as long as it is accessible. No other guidelines have mentioned this so I'm trying to be sure I do the right thing/share the right information going forward.
Maybe add a AMA pop up in wayfarer so they actually have to read what has changed before they can review the next nomination.
I'd still like you guys to have a wayfarer app that has nominations, submissions, AMA updates, edits, maps and missions all on the same app. This would make creating missions back from the grave. And let pogo players help create a better community in all game platforms.
Would also be nice if you was able to use the same submission system that made redacted so much faster and more reliable to nominate. As soon as you clicked the submit button it was gone. The new system is still a bit to sensitive with signals etc.
With Wayfarer global release, forum threads and AMAs are losing their prominence. Compile the changes /clarification to the guidelines and put them on Wayfarer site - that way the majority of the reviewers have chance of seeing them.
I hate to say I told you all so but I did say with wayfarer going live for everyone on pogo it would definitely change the dynamics of the group which includes a split platform of wayfarer.
Having it cross platforms would automatically change this forum. Ingress has been holding pogo players to ransom for new stops for far too long.
Ingress and Wizards United each have a seperate forum run by Niantic. Pokemon Go doesn't. If they wanted to they could build it. There are not going to be pogo specific channels on this forum. The only over-lap is Wayfarer. I don't know exactly how they will handle in the future whether it will be a forum for just Wayfarer or they'll lurk on reddit and do an occasional AMA but it is highly unlikely there will be pogo specific channels added to this forum.
You dont know what niantic is intending to do. They make 1 big forum with all 3 platforms havering access. With a shared wayfarer. Who knows they are all about bringing community together ?♂️
Thanks for the feedback, there are a couple things that we're working on (that I can't quite reveal right now) that will help to address the gap in information that you're citing. As @JSteve0 mentioned, we're being more fastidious in keeping updates to acceptance criteria current on the Help Center, both in the Update Log as well as with updates to the criteria, when it makes sense.
They've been fairly good about changing for the positive with nominations. If it makes it easier for people to know and follow the rules, then it's good. Like an easier way for all players to ask questions.
Comments
@NianticCasey Could you provide some insight on this question.
Should activity centers who’s primary function is to serve youth under 18 be eligible? Currently the guide only mentions primary and secondary schools.
The debate is over scouts/cadets meeting locations.
Thank you for your time.
Ok so if I put it this way. If I'm a pogo player and tomorrow I submit a cadets and i have never seen later years AMA because its something niantic hasnt showed me is it still bad.
Are the PoGo players as a disadvantage absolutely, and while they don’t know they shouldn’t be submitting and approving doesn’t mean it’s correct. Niantic does need to update the guide with additional clarification.
ill go back to my example, earlier, you can break a rule without even knowing it exists. I am not saying it’s their fault but the AMA still exist and still are valid source material.
All that happened is the name changed from OPR to Wayfarer, they didn't just chuck out all the old guidelines and ignore the old AMA's
Just because the process for reviewing POI's has had a name change does not instantly mean they have changed their acceptance criteria to now accept POI's that were previously invalid.
Infact there are a couple of threads on here where @NianticCasey has referenced the old AMAs as being vaild currently.
If we were instructed to reject certain POI's before, then that instruction is still valid, until and unless Niantic state otherwise.
That's all I asked in the first place. But if people have no access to any of this information and there own guidelines clearly state no schools or daycares then why are they not acceptable.
And yes I have submitted scouts and cadets why because there are scout and cadet halls already in. Does that make it wrong no because I haven't had access to AMAs until recently. Can I find these AMAs no because there in a years worth of posts and I dont have time to go back and check.
Yes, just because the submitter may not have seen the AMA, does not mean that a submission is allowed to be approved against the reviewing guidelines.
Should the submission guidelines have been improved to include all the previous AMA's, undoubtedly yes.
Its not the submitters fault they have no idea they are submitting something that is invalid if it is not covered by the submission guide, however that does not automatically mean that anything not in that guide should be accepted if reviewers have already been told to reject such candidates
It says it directly somewhere just because you see a waypoint if something doesn’t mean it’s an eligible candidate for future submissions.
Ok so let me try it this way on the flip side a pogo player is reviewing a portal like cadets and they go by the guidelines. They have no access at the moment to this board I'm guessing (only a guess) and they all accept it is it then bad? Should they have known something that they have no access to?
This is why Wayfarer is completely different to OPR and OPR is now irrelevant, and the old guidelines dont really matter.
I know you are all going to be hitting that disagree button like you have already but you must be able to see my point.
This original thread was a question to niantic
Hi folks,
I talked this over internally and we had quite the discussion about the nuances of this. There's a lot of different ways that this could be sliced when considering the guideline around K-12 schools and wayspots on school grounds.
Where we landed was here: If they’re full-time Cadet or Scount buildings where the primary purpose is gathering of people in the K-12 age range with a membership component, it would be considered similar to a private daycare center and ineligible. However, if it’s a public gathering place that’s occasionally used for Scout or Guide meetings, then yes it would be eligible like a playground where kids can gather but also are publicly accessible without a membership.
That's still not clear to me, for the same reason that I actually asked about this in the recent AMA that as far as I know the answers haven't been published yet. Who owns the building is not necessarily any guide to percentage of time that it is used by Scouts and Guides. My local Scout Hut is used by Scout groups for only about 6 hours a week, all on a Sunday, and is actually used for more hours by local dog training groups. There are community centres that under that answer people will consider "more eligible" which are used by multiple Scout and Guide groups and used for those purposes for more hours in a week. If the aim is to reduce the number of portals on places that are primarily used for child-based groups then surely some kind of evidence of usage of the community hall is more relevant than who the title deeds say it belongs to
Maybe I’m missing something, but It seemed pretty clear to me. Casey didn’t say anything about ownership being the driving factor. It sounds like exclusive (or near-exclusive use) is. So your examples sound like they would likely fall under the “public gathering place also used sometimes for scout meetings” category.
@pokestophope I actually am working with @RedSoloCup on the AMA answers right now and saw your question.
The spirit of this guideline is twofold:
In the examples that you cited, a building that restricts access to members of the Scout group but whose primary purpose is a meeting space not necessarily for children wouldn't be eligible. However, if it were just a general community hall that happened to host Scout meetings occasionally, as long as it didn't require special membership to access, it would be eligible.
Did something change to make membership/restricted access spaces inelligible? We can't submit golf courses/country clubs/sports clubs any more?
I think they're trying allow us to get as many spots to play in as possible but they don't want get a call from the property owners about trepassing or interrupting normal functions of the place. Obviously follow whatever guidance they give us at the AMA but if you have a spot that technically qualifies but you know they already have issues with people trepassing or parking illegally probably not a good idea to submit.
It's a pretty big departure from previous guidelines where access does not need to be for everyone as long as it is accessible. No other guidelines have mentioned this so I'm trying to be sure I do the right thing/share the right information going forward.
Amazing @NianticCasey @RedSoloCup thanks for answering and taking time to think this one over.
Now is there a way you can tell other reviewers.
Maybe add a AMA pop up in wayfarer so they actually have to read what has changed before they can review the next nomination.
I'd still like you guys to have a wayfarer app that has nominations, submissions, AMA updates, edits, maps and missions all on the same app. This would make creating missions back from the grave. And let pogo players help create a better community in all game platforms.
Would also be nice if you was able to use the same submission system that made redacted so much faster and more reliable to nominate. As soon as you clicked the submit button it was gone. The new system is still a bit to sensitive with signals etc.
Yes, it seems to be something different. Worth paying attention to.
With Wayfarer global release, forum threads and AMAs are losing their prominence. Compile the changes /clarification to the guidelines and put them on Wayfarer site - that way the majority of the reviewers have chance of seeing them.
I hate to say I told you all so but I did say with wayfarer going live for everyone on pogo it would definitely change the dynamics of the group which includes a split platform of wayfarer.
Having it cross platforms would automatically change this forum. Ingress has been holding pogo players to ransom for new stops for far too long.
Ingress and Wizards United each have a seperate forum run by Niantic. Pokemon Go doesn't. If they wanted to they could build it. There are not going to be pogo specific channels on this forum. The only over-lap is Wayfarer. I don't know exactly how they will handle in the future whether it will be a forum for just Wayfarer or they'll lurk on reddit and do an occasional AMA but it is highly unlikely there will be pogo specific channels added to this forum.
You dont know what niantic is intending to do. They make 1 big forum with all 3 platforms havering access. With a shared wayfarer. Who knows they are all about bringing community together ?♂️
I read it as membership in the youth group being the limiting access, not membership as a general concept.
They did add this to wayfarer after the last AMA
Thanks for the feedback, there are a couple things that we're working on (that I can't quite reveal right now) that will help to address the gap in information that you're citing. As @JSteve0 mentioned, we're being more fastidious in keeping updates to acceptance criteria current on the Help Center, both in the Update Log as well as with updates to the criteria, when it makes sense.
That's worrisome but thank you @NianticCasey !
What's worrisome about that change isnt a bad thing. If it keeps the game alive then it's all good.
They've been fairly good about changing for the positive with nominations. If it makes it easier for people to know and follow the rules, then it's good. Like an easier way for all players to ask questions.