NEW POIs for inns, fortresses, etc.
PinkPygmyPuffer
Posts: 4 ✭✭
Hi! I would like to request Niantic add the feature to HPWU that exists in Pokémon and Ingress, which allows higher level players to be able to submit POIs for fortresses, inns, and greenhouses. It is REALLY difficult for rural players, and I must pass a hundred different historical markers, post offices, memorials, churches, etc. on a daily basis that could be added to the game too. The feature exists-like adventure sync-in the other games, so when will it be possible for us? I know that I could play the other games and submit, tried that, but I really don’t care for those games, HPWU is so much better! Rural players are at a major disadvantage, this could level the playing field for us and attract new players too. All that being said, I love this game and am super stoked about adventure sync and thankful that you listen to your fans.
Comments
So simply put, you want "Wayfarer for HPWU", yes? (Waypoints = Points of Interest, Wayfarer = Tool for Voting on Submissions)
(Sidenote: Step 1 and 2 was disabled for PoGO recently because there were so many submissions that it crashed the system)
Yes exactly! HPWU needs this!
The whole database system used stinks.
Niantic basically built a database of places of interest, based on players for an early game. So you've got places where people who placed that game lived and used phones.
The current system has three games reporting locations where people are, and there is a known database of "areas where things are dense / thin".
Niantic would have no problem -- ** NO PROBLEM AT ALL ** -- putting up some sort of "Help us fix a lack of points of interest in this area" notice to people who play in those areas.
As for "too dense"?
I found that there is one park around where I live -- 5 minute drive -- that has 2 greenhouses, 5 or 6 inns, and a fortress. I can grab one greenhouse and all but one inn with about 30 steps, so grab, go into fortress, fight, loop and repeat. And while I'm in the fortress, I walk the other 150 steps or so to get to the last greenhouse and inn.
That is ultra simple and easy. Spell energy is dirt cheap over there, so it's "cast cast cast".
Elsewhere? Is it worth spending a point of spell energy to cast protego in battle? No. Etc. It's ration my spell energy.
The other parks in town? Might have one or 2 points of interest.
Where I live? There's 2 greenhouses at a place where PoGo has one pokestop and one gym. These greenhouses correspond to either a waste processing/recycling center or a dirt field with a plaque (in fairness, it's a significant local spot, but it's still a field of wild tall grass-type plants (aka weeds) and dirt.
Down the block half a mile? Two inns at places that used to be restaurants, and are now demolished.
In town? Lots of restaurants that have no spots, or lots of POI's that are no longer there. Etc.
There's 2 areas -- downtown business central, and that one park -- that have lots of things. People who live in those areas have a much easier time playing than the rest of us.
This isn't a WB issue, or an HPWU issue. This is a flaw with Niantic's POI database and the fact that they don't update it based on the actual locations where people use their programs/database, there is no "remove stuff that is no longer there" process, and there is no "This is too much stuff here, too little stuff there" balancing.
That Ingress players that have put too much time, ** and only Ingress players that have put in too much time** can update things is an issue. And yes, a friend of mine who was upset with PoGo tried playing Ingress to reach that point. He said that he stopped when what he needed to cross (last level if I remember correctly) was significantly longer than is entire playtime to date (he said, I think, 7 times as much playtime as everything he had done up to that point to reach the "can update the database" stage).
So yea, it's an issue that affects HPWU. Maybe Warner Brothers is big enough to force Niantic to do something about it?
The current system has three games reporting locations where people are, and there is a known database of "areas where things are dense / thin".
No longer correct. Currently there is only 1 Game able submitting new Locations: "Ingress Prime". For a while PoGO was, too, but that feature was disabled on 27.12.2019. (Source)
Also, "Landmarks" are not placed by Players. They are added into the game based on certain categories of locations marked on Open-Street-Map.
Furthermore, the goal isn't to have POI "equally dense" all over the world. You may disagree - and many players do - but there is reason for Niantic to do it the way they do. It's futile to argue over that without knowing/understanding the other perspective.
Is it worth spending a point of spell energy to cast protego in battle?
Protego doesn't cost Spell Energy.
(...) dirt field with a plaque (in fairness, it's a significant local spot, but it's still a field of wild tall grass-type plants (aka weeds) and dirt.
There is a set of rules and regulations to define what a good Waypoint/PoI is. "Local gathering spot" and "Sports Area" are among those that would qualify as a good poi. To learn more, click here.
(...) there is no "remove stuff that is no longer there" process, (...)
Incorrect. There is a process to remove Waypoints/PoI - regardless of the reason (and there are many more than just "doesn't exist any longer")
It can be found in-app:
That Ingress players that have put too much time, ** and only Ingress players that have put in too much time** can update things is an issue.
That is to some extend incorrect and to some extend intentional:
I figured I’d just try to hit Lvl 40 in PoGo so that I could make submissions for PoGo, which will then turn into Portals for Ingress and an Inn/Greenhouse/Fortress for WU.
That said, I do like the idea of there being a system that allows players to mark an Inn (for Example) and say “please make this a Fortress or a Greenhouse”.
If there are enough requests for the same In/Greenhouse/Fortress by enough players, I he system flags it to the developers to consider.
This May not help isolated rural players unless they organise players to come and visit their town to help boost a submission request.
There is a shopping district that is a great gathering point for players in my area that has a great cluster of Inns and Traces spawn with abundance. However, there isn’t an Inn anywhere at all. Only Inns and a couple (possibly 2) Greenhouses.
As it stands, it’s a great place for people on this side of my city to gather for DD Parties to smash out Bonus Tasks quickly. If it had an Inn, it would be a great place for people to meet to play to tackle Fortress Challenges together.
Having a feature that required many players to all tag the same existing POI and request it be changed into something else would also encourage people to find local communities and to talk to one another, to coordinate requests.
”OK folks, which Inn are we all going to request be turned into a Fortress and why?”
Yes! Thanks everyone for contributing. I hope we are able to do this in HPWU at some point. I have tried updating the open street map, unsuccessfully. I’ve got my husband playing Pokémon go just to be able to do this. Hopefully Wayfarer will return. There are post offices, historical markers, and lots of community spaces/buildings that could be POIs. Things that are tagged as POIs other places. I would go through whatever submissions process necessary. I do have to drive at least 25 min to the next nearest (playable) town. The two towns nearer only have 1 game thing each. It’s less than ideal, I just love the game, been playing since it was released, and I am only nearing level 40. I know there would be more interest in playing near me, if it were more accessible. I’m sure people give up quickly because of the frustration, I’m just a huge Harry Potter loving NERD!
(quoting other messages in this forum is a PITA.)
Quote:
The current system has three games reporting locations where people are, and there is a known database of "areas where things are dense / thin".
No longer correct. Currently there is only 1 Game able submitting new Locations: "Ingress Prime". For a while PoGO was, too, but that feature was disabled on 27.12.2019.
Reply:
All three games constantly track who is playing where, so they know where the game players are. They know, for example, how well the correlation between Ingress and Harry Potter players is -- do both games have the same player distribution around the world, or does HP get players in different areas.
"Where the players are" is different from "where the Poi's are", and "where the ingress players are" is different from "where the PoGo players" or "where the HP players are".
And, looking at that Faq you linked to:
in the early stages of the game the players themselves could suggest new POI. ... When the number of Submissions reached a level that Niantic could no longer handle, they quietly ceased to review the submissions.
So, early players of Ingress were able to easily add Poi's, and later players were highly restricted, and players of other games are basically not able to. For a while, high level PoGo players could nominate, and even now high level Ingress players can nominate, but you need (if I understand the process correctly) other high-level Ingress players to verify. So in order for new points to affect game play in PoGo or HP, you need Ingress players in that area.
Do you see the problem here?
Lots of early Ingress players nominating lots of spots == that area is Poi dense.
Lots of people playing the current games and not Ingress == waste of time :-).
Quote:
Also, "Landmarks" are not placed by Players. They are added into the game based on certain categories of locations marked on Open-Street-Map.
Reply:
Umm ... are we talking about the same thing? Gameplay spots -- gyms/pokestops/inns/greenhouses/fortresses -- that have user submitted names and pictures? That everyone says are placed by Ingress players?
Quote:
Furthermore, the goal isn't to have POI "equally dense" all over the world. You may disagree - and many players do - but there is reason for Niantic to do it the way they do. It's futile to argue over that without knowing/understanding the other perspective.
Reply:
You're right. I don't know their goals.
What I do know is what I see:
You claim that there is a reason, that there is a goal that Niantic is aiming for. What is it / where did you find out about it? How do you know that they have a goal, and not just "We think this current process is good enough"?
quote:
Is it worth spending a point of spell energy to cast protego in battle?
Protego doesn't cost Spell Energy.
Reply:
My testing seemed to indicate it did.
Retesting: No cost in "out in the field" battles. Will recheck fortresses soon. (And given how much spell energy there is around the fortresses, it doesn't matter if it does.)
Quote:
(...) dirt field with a plaque (in fairness, it's a significant local spot, but it's still a field of wild tall grass-type plants (aka weeds) and dirt.
There is a set of rules and regulations to define what a good Waypoint/PoI is. "Local gathering spot" and "Sports Area" are among those that would qualify as a good poi. To learn more, click ...
(...) there is no "remove stuff that is no longer there" process, (...)
Incorrect. There is a process to remove Waypoints/PoI - regardless of the reason (and there are many more than just "doesn't exist any longer")
It can be found in-app:
First, this would -- if it worked -- only permit REMOVING dead PoI's. Given how PoI-poor my area is, I don't want to reduce the amount of gameplay spots. If it would allow me to suggest a replacement location, great.
Second, when I checked that out last time, there was only a limited set of reasons available. I can't check it right now because I have an active bug report that I am waiting for a response on.
Quote:
That Ingress players that have put too much time, ** and only Ingress players that have put in too much time** can update things is an issue.
That is to some extend incorrect and to some extend intentional:
Reply:
My understanding of the review process is that it has to be done by an Ingress player of sufficient level who plays in that area. Given the lack of updates happening in this area, it is reasonable to conclude that there aren't any.
In fact, in all my visits to various locations shared between the games I have only met one Ingress player (I did not check if they were high enough level to do the review/updating or not), and one pokemon player. No HP players yet.
Quote:
Adding new things requires you to understand the logic of what's considered a "good" addition to the Database. And to get to that level of understanding requires you to:
Play the game for a certain amount of time, to familiarize yourself with the Locations that already exist.
Reply:
Having talked to someone that played PoGo, and decided to play Ingress just to reach the point of being able to update the database, the time needed to actually do this was excessive and unreasonable. It basically ensures that only serious Ingress players will do so, but it also means that you only get updates to the Ingress database.
Remember, both other games -- HP and PG -- have fewer locations and those same locations map differently.
So it's not just "play and become familiar"; it's "play long enough to show that you are serious about this game, even though what you do will affect other games."
Quote:
Yep, read that page, read up on the S2 cell division of the planet, see how it differs between USA and UK, have to guess how it affects the right-side of the old world. Non-uniform division of a non-uniform globe.
Here's the basic issue. Niantic has a database that contains both ** some ** points of interest, and mappings of those points to game locations for three different games with different rules of how to map PoI's to game locations.
They are applying one set of rules to the question "Do we let this PoI into the database", and that is based on "Will this PoI make a good addition to Ingress?".
Allowing for "Lets make an exception for the earliest PoI's added that would not pass the current rules", that still means that "What is good for Ingress, as determined by high-level Ingress players that managed to get by with the current PoI set" is being used to determine "What changes to the PoI set should be made". And if there are not high-level Ingress players, the only thing that can be done is to make gameplay worse by removing scarce resources.
Niantic does not maintain a list of PoI's that are mapped as needed by the games. They maintain a partial list of some PoI's based on what's good for one game, and do not permit that to be expanded sufficiently, and almost no game players will want to remove PoI's because of the lack of replacements.
And while they have the ability to say "There is where the players are", they make no attempt to say "Lets put gameplay locations near the players".
Good lord that’s a long comment.
You are not the first person to make a similar comment.
I have a tendency to make long, well-researched posts, and when possible including links (not allowed here yet), etc. I could do a good job of following Jon Oliver with his 20 minute researched details on a single topic that get not nearly enough views.
if I understand the process correctly
POI's can be submitted by (currently) only Ingress Players, reviewed by both Ingress and PoGO players. To review, you don't have to play in the area or even be in the area. To submit, you have to be on-site.
The reason why currently only Ingress Players can submit is because there are far more submitters than reviewers. In order to keep the "balance", the PoGO-Submission-Function was ceased for the time being.
Do you see the problem here?
No, I don't.
Umm ... are we talking about the same thing? Gameplay spots -- gyms/pokestops/inns/greenhouses/fortresses -- that have user submitted names and pictures? That everyone says are placed by Ingress players?
Also, Landmarks are these AoI (the flags that correspond to a certain area / registry-family). They are NOT placed by players but imported from certain filter-categories in Open-Street-Map. Parks for example are connected to "Care of Magical Creatures" Landmarks and Pet-Shops / Veterinarians are connected to "Magizoology".
You're right. I don't know their goals.
Then there's no point to argue or speculate.
First, this would -- if it worked -- only permit REMOVING dead PoI's.
PoI can be moved and removed. If a real object was replaced by something else, the suggested way of handling it is to mark the old one for removal and submit the new PoI.
My understanding of the review process is that it has to be done by an Ingress player of sufficient level who plays in that area.
No, see above.
Given the lack of updates happening in this area, it is reasonable to conclude that there aren't any.
There can be 2 reasons for a lack of updates:
and almost no game players will want to remove PoI's because of the lack of replacements.
I know more than enough Players of Ingress and PoGO that would disagree.
And while they have the ability to say "There is where the players are", they make no attempt to say "Lets put gameplay locations near the players".
Again, you speculate about the goals of Niantic. Pointless.
I have a tendency to make long, well-researched posts
Which are difficult to have a conversation about.
The reason why currently only Ingress Players can submit is because there are far more submitters than reviewers.
This can be solved by hiring and training people.
The money that is being made by The Pokemon Company, and Warner Brothers, as well as Niantic tells me that there is more than enough money to hire and train people.
This is one of those problems that can be solved by money. And these games make enough money to afford it. To say that "We want to run a game that discriminates against certain people because of where they live in order to make more money" is seriously problematic. Especially if someone were to do statistical analysis and find that the people so disadvantaged are one of the protected groups under US law.
On the subject of Niantic's intent/goals:
Then there's no point to argue or speculate.
Again, you speculate about the goals of Niantic. Pointless.
No. You have asserted that Niantic had goals/intentions.
I have asserted that I do not know what they are, and I can look and observe and see something -- and attempt to draw hypothesis thereon.
For you to say that because I don't know the truth, then speculation is pointless? All of science is saying "I don't know the truth, lets make guesses and compare to observations" (Ok, that's highly simplified, but you get the idea).
There are some things we know:
#1: We know that there is a database of PoI's.
#2: We know that there are rules for adding new PoI's.
#3: We know that the rules do not permit adding all PoI's.
#4: We know that the permitted new PoI's correspond to what is allowed in Ingress, and a subset of those are used in the other games.
Etc.
Furthermore, the goal isn't to have POI "equally dense" all over the world. You may disagree - and many players do - but there is reason for Niantic to do it the way they do. It's futile to argue over that without knowing/understanding the other perspective.
** YOU ARE ARGUING THAT YOU KNOW THE TRUTH **, as in capital T truth. You are arguing that there is a reason for Niantic to do certain things.
Now, you might be right. Heck, for all I know, you are signature to an NDA, and you can assert that it does exist and you can't tell me. If so, say so, and that will stop this right here.
But to go from "I believe that Niantic has a plan", to "There must be a plan, stop complaining"?
I admit that I don't know, I can only observe.
You seem to be saying that if I don't know, I must be silent.
To that, I say no.
Also, Landmarks are these AoI (the flags that correspond to a certain area / registry-family). They are NOT placed by players but imported from certain filter-categories in Open-Street-Map. Parks for example are connected to "Care of Magical Creatures" Landmarks and Pet-Shops / Veterinarians are connected to "Magizoology".
Ok, but I wasn't talking about those.
On the subject of PoI's:
PoI can be moved and removed. If a real object was replaced by something else, the suggested way of handling it is to mark the old one for removal and submit the new PoI.
Modifying existing things - adding a new photo, improving on the lat/long-location, adding/correcting the description/name - can be done by any player regardless of level. A review-process does apply though
The "Submit a problem with PoI's" for HPWU states very clearly that they cannot alter Niantic's database. They can only remove sites that are problematic for certain reasons. They cannot move them. They can only delete. Not from Niantic's database, but from their "this is how we use Niantic's database" copy/filter.
So, if a ... level 17? cell has 2 or more entries, and we remove one that is in violation of the HPWU rules, that cell will get a different entry turned into a game point. Otherwise, we just lose a game point.
Modifying doable by any player? Nope. Went to that site for PoGo players, was told that my account (level 14, I think) did not qualify and to come back at level 40.
So to remove one and add another to replace it? Ingress 10 is the only option. Then wait for Ingress 12 or Pokemon 40 to approve.
You seem to be saying that if I don't know, I must be silent.
No, that wasn't the intention. The intention was:
And if that still sounds to you like "be silent", then let me spell it out for you: "be empathic". Have a look at the other side of the conversation. Do your RESEARCH - something that you prided yourself to be thorough in.
First, thank you for those links.
Second, do not assume that someone else not finding certain webpages that you have found means that they did not attempt research.
Third, none of those pages discuss anything related to the discussion here. None of them address goals or intent of the PoI database that would validate any sort of "don't list everything". Given that they started effectively as the Google Earth team (which I did not know, thank you), and that all of their early stuff was "everything", seeing the whole "Only so many PoI's per section of the planet" seems even stranger.
"be empathic". Have a look at the other side of the conversation.
Forgive me for mirroring this right back at you.
I have attempted to understand your point of view. It seems to be this:
#1. There is a valid and good set of rules for where and how things are added.
#2. Niantic has a known and publicly stated reason and purpose for every restriction that they have.
#3. It is perfectly reasonable to have significant restrictions on who can nominate new places for the database based on playing two games when that database is used for many purposes, not just those two games.
#4. It is perfectly reasonable to limit verification to those who play the oldest game at high level only, and not have any attempt to hire people for verifying locations.
#5. It is perfectly reasonable to make it more difficult to nominate PoI's because there aren't enough people of high level playing the old game to verify these locations.
#6. If I don't know what you know, then you can dismiss me and make no attempt to educate me.
Would you please tell me how well I did at understanding you?
Would you please make an attempt to restate my point of view?
---
Re-reading this thread, in order to restate what I think is your point, I realized I missed responding to this:
Me:
and almost no game players will want to remove PoI's because of the lack of replacements.
You:
I know more than enough Players of Ingress and PoGO that would disagree.
If I'm in a location where there are one pair of greenhouses, one of which is now gone (landmark removed), and there's no replacement; and the only other locations are a pair of inns half a mile away, again one gone (location demolished) or a single inn 3/4ths of a mile away (still there), then removing two play points with no replacements is not a good idea.
In comparison, in town, there's a ton of them in the central park, or along the two main business / downtown streets. Those could easily remove one or two.
But, and this gets back to "do the research": The local library is not a PoI, and I'm not able to nominate it as one even though that's supposed to be one of the big goals of Niantic, even stated in their rules for what makes a good PoI.
Is this sufficient to show you that I do try to understand what I'm talking about?
---
I do not care if you know of Ingress or PoGo players that would not mind removing spots in those games.
I do not care if you point to those spots where there are LOTS of spots in HPWU and suggest removing things.
It's when you say "Therefore, we should have no problem removing dead PoI spots for any reason", when there are areas with horrible shortages, that I disagree with you.
Second, do not assume that someone else not finding certain webpages that you have found means that they did not attempt research.
You're right, I'm sorry.
None of them address goals or intent of the PoI database that would validate any sort of "don't list everything".
I disagree with that. Niantic expressed in their "Real World Platform"-Blogpost that their core values as a company are "exploration, exercise, and real-world social interaction"
Given that that's the core value of the entire company, that (too) extends to the POI database. There are specific activities Niantic wants to promote, the POI database needs to represent those, containing Locations that:
So Places that are neither of these are not POI-Worthy - thereby supporting my claim that "equal density of POI" is not a goal.
That being said, I do agree with you that not all places that would qualify as "good POI" are already POI. But I don't think that "money" is a suitable way of solving that issue.
I do not care if you know of Ingress or PoGo players that would not mind removing spots in those games.
I do not care if you point to those spots where there are LOTS of spots in HPWU and suggest removing things.
It's when you say "Therefore, we should have no problem removing dead PoI spots for any reason", when there are areas with horrible shortages, that I disagree with you.
I didn't say that.
Ingress is a highly competitive game, PoGO is competitive too but not as much.
There have been cases where specific POI were reported (marked for removal) because the locations were of higher use to one faction than the other. There have been cases where POI were submitted ("nominated" as you've called it) that are neither explorative nor exercising-related nor in any way "social", just because pokemon players wanted to have a POI in range of their couch.
I disagree with these notions but that doesn't make them disappear. And I mentioned them because I wanted to make you aware of them - as you expressed that these notions didn't exist.
Just a minor final correction there:
But I don't think that "money" is a suitable way of solving that issue.
"Money", no. "Hiring people", yes. Hiring people means spending money to train and pay them.
Relying on player volunteers, and then saying "Our reviewers can't keep up, so we're dropping/restricting the program" means "we don't want to spend money to have professionals, trained by us to our standards, doing the reviewing".
It's one thing to say "You have to be an active player for two weeks to be able to nominate/submit a potential place".
But Ingress 10/pokemon 40? That's what? How many months?
And Ingress 12 for review? When as you said, what makes a good PoI for a competitive game isn't the same as what makes it good for a virtual tour app, or a non-competitive "work together against the dark wizard towers" game?
"Money", no. "Hiring people", yes. Hiring people means spending money to train and pay them.
Still, basicly the same thing to me. Money is thrown at the issue - which is then used to hire and train people to solve it. Same thing, really.
But Ingress 10/pokemon 40? That's what? How many months?
Hm, if you know what you're doing, Ingress L10 can be reached in a matter of days; if you don't then it can be a matter of years. Same with Ingress L12. The current record for Ingress L8 is 54 minutes, I think.
PoGO L40 takes a lot longer. That being said, I do believe that the requirement for PoGO is artificially set that high to discourage people from "gaming the system" - but that's just my opinion/impression.
When as you said, what makes a good PoI for a competitive game isn't the same as what makes it good for a virtual tour app, or a non-competitive "work together against the dark wizard towers" game?
The Rules for what makes a good POI are the same for all 3 games.
But whether the people playing those games actually agree with those rules and follow them, that's an entirely different question.
It's a big planet. I think the only way to get a database with POIs of a level this granular (i.e. not just the big landmarks, but the smallest of murals) is to crowdsource the job, which is what Niantic has done. And to get a grasp of what makes a good POI, they set the bar high for players.
Why they left out the nomination process in HPWU is unknown to me. Could be they don't see it as needed because of the huge playerbase of PoGo. Or, it's on the roadmap and will be implemented in the future.
Meanwhile, @PinkPygmyPuffer and the people who are unlucky to live in a Wayspot-sparse area could try reaching out to the playerbases of PoGo and Ingress. In my experience, many would be happy to help out. Finding them could be tricky, but they tend to flock at some Inns doing raids.
Crowdsourcing it to the community has one unseen advantage compared to "hiring people": redistribution of blame.
When Niantic still did the Reviews themselves, they were shouted at and hated for rejecting things. People got really mad and tried exploiting the system to get their will.
Now that the Reviews are crowdsourced, Submitters shout at the Reviewers ("My Submission was good, why didn't you accept it?!?") and Reviewers shout at Submitters ("Stop trying to make your fake Home-POI happen, submit something real and we'll accept it").
I think that's a poetic solution to the entire situation.