Best Of
Re: Trailmarkers - warning received
Oh! Did you say "Quiz?" I think you mean "New Onboarding," which, coincidentally, includes THIS image of a TRAIL MARKER as a great POI.
Re: Trailmarkers - warning received
Nice job @NianticAaron ! I didn’t think you would manage to come up with a worse clarification than “any game reference in supporting info is rejectable for influencing reviewers, even though the games tell you to reference them in supporting info” this year, much less in the same month! You’re really on a roll!
Re: Trailmarkers - warning received
It is only natural that a message which by its content is divisive will cause strong reactions, but can everyone please remember to treat each other with respect.
Maybe its time to update the guidelines?
A few questions.
Quotes from original post by @NianticAaron
Trail markers that list the name and other information about the trail are good candidates (the ones with just numbers or arrows are not considered good).
Does the Giffard scale no longer apply at all? (see @cyndiepooh-ING post above)
Does the @NianticTintino-ING criteria clarification post no longer apply at all? https://community.wayfarer.nianticlabs.com/discussion/comment/175598/#Comment_175598
How was it decided that they no longer apply. Unlike previous clarifications which arose out of discussion so the community had buy in to the outcome and understood why.
The information provided by the submitter also plays a role. We would also love to see what is interesting about this trail. Was it the first trail in the area, does it highlight specific wildlife local to this region? All of this would help make it much easier to rate higher.
Puzzled by what is meant by "higher" when can only rate thumbs up, down or IDK. Under what question would you discriminate and use your best judgement as to whether the trail was a thumbs up or IDK?
So if a trailmarker didn't have a name in words plus some other non-defined information, but it was shown the trail was interesting, would the marker be accepted?
The second point is how many of these trail markers are there?
How is it possible to know the answer to this? When a person reviews they can only see the nearby ones that have been approved. What is the point of knowing how many there are?
Are they distinguishable and far enough apart that it doesn’t make the others any less unique?
Distinguishable from each other? The whole point about trail markers is that they mark the one trail and in order to recognise that trail they need to look alike, have a common basis. But they are also designed to be seen so they are distinguishable.
So as long as in our best judgement, we consider it unique, that is ok? Can we have a box to record that decision in please.
Besides which it is the trail and not the marker that is important.
The next thing we consider is if they are permanent. Stickers and printouts are not considered permanent and may be rejected.
A simple piece of paper is clearly not a permanent object. However high quality sticker material is designed to stay put and remain recognisable (not fade). In some areas these are the standard official markers - normal for the area.
Not every area is wealthy enough to create costly non-environment friendly trail markers, but they still value the core value of exercise and exploration, which until now I thought was a Wayfarer value.
Hope this clarifies the confusion.
No.
The above seems to be more about acceptability. It is not at all clear why something that is eligible an official marker for an official trail which covers 2 of the 3 base criteria should warrant any kind of warning.
For crowd sourcing to work you need to have the crowd in agreement.
Re: Trailmarkers - warning received
Oh good, a Niantic employee finally replied...
Oh. Oh no.
Re: Trailmarkers - warning received
You did read the critera right? Also I thought Niantic was done having an opinion and wanted the community to decide what's eligible and not.
"As stated in our June 2023 AMA we aim to ensure that the community is able to bring unique and significant places we may have never discovered. Niantic is a global company with a diverse workforce and we strive to create a map that reflects the world’s many cultures and perspectives. However, we recognize that we cannot be experts on every location, and we rely on the community to help us identify important places and landmarks that should be included on our map. By not significantly changing our criteria, we are ensuring that we do not impose our own limited view of the world, and that we instead allow the community to help shape the map".
Re: Trailmarkers - warning received
The problem is even if good judgement is used and these trail markers are being approved by the community, many are still being taken down that have long been approved, some on appeal by Niantic themselves and warnings and bans are being handed out.
I find this clarity even more confusing and even more against what Niantic stands for and previous guidelines many of us have been using to nominate and vote with.
Re: Trailmarkers - warning received
I agree with everything the Ambassadors [active and retired ;) ] have said above. Trails with POI are more likely to encourage people to exercise, explore, and socialize. I personally am way more likely to go walk in parks (often with trails) with better POI for Pokémon Go, and I keep track of which ones those are so that I can recommend them to others who frequently ask.
This reversal on long-standing trail guidance is confusing. Please clarify.
Re: Is it considered abuse to use another player's account for extra appeals?
So you’re saying you’d log in to her account on your device and then make the nomination? That sounds like it falls under this section of the TOS that you would have agreed to.
As you are sharing accounts/playing with multiple accounts for the same service.
I don’t see why you don’t just use your own account to renominate the Wayspot?
Re: Trailmarkers - warning received
This is by far the worst comment ever made by someone of the Wayfarer team. There isn't even any competition. How can anyone ever take anything you say seriously after this?
- You don't understand that there is more than one eligibility criterion. Not everything must be a great place to explore. It doesn't matter what the marker looks like, what information it contains, or what material it is made of. It represents a great place to exercise not matter what. Meeting that eligibility criterion is enough.
- You don't understand the concept of an object that placemarks an area. A trail marker is an object that placemarks a section of a trail. As said in point 1, it doesn't matter what it looks like or what it's made of. It merely functions as a physical, tangible object that is used as a placemark for the section of the trail, which is the actual wayspot.
- A trail is interesting because it is a great place to exercise. Being the first trail in the area is just a bonus that is unnecessary for the trail to meet eligibility criteria. Same with having a specific theme.
- A sticker is just as permanent as any other marker. And as said in point 2, it is not the marker that is being nominated. It is a section of a trail. If the trail is "permanent", then the markers are as well. Even if one is damaged or removed, they are quickly replaced. Sticker markers on "permanent" trails are not temporary.
Go back to every single trailmarker you removed and restore them. Send out an apology mail to everyone you sent a warning mail or gave a ban, and work together with the games teams to give them a decent compensation. Then take the necessary actions to ensure this never happens again!
Re: Trailmarkers - warning received
Actually, no, this is contradictory to previous statements made by members of Niantic's team.
First issue is the trail markers themselves, and how they meet criteria. It has been an ongoing debate for years, but I like to compare trail markers to other sorts of nominations. Nominations must be placed on a physical marker, like a sign, but what's important is what they represent. Church signs are often very generic looking. Footbridges along trails often have no identifiers on them. Signs next to a waterfall are often really uninteresting, but they are valid because they represent something that IS interesting. Trails are designed to let people explore, one of the fundamental pillars of wayfarer!
It is also important to remember that standards are very different around the world. While some areas might have beautiful signs with fancy names, other communities may not have the budget for these, so the trails are marked by posts with numbers, or smaller identifiers. I have thought wayfarer does not want to discriminate against players based on where they live, and economic factors that the players have little control over. Trails are often one of the few options for players in more rural areas who want to be able to interact with wayfarer and Niantic's games.
The last problem, which is why people are so angry about this, is the inconsistency. If Niantic says something is ok to submit, even if the standards are changed later, it is just not right to later decide to punish players who have not kept up to date with the constantly changing standards. Players who are genuinely trying to contribute to the system should not be penalized. There are plenty of abusers who are clearly and deliberately working to break the system, and punishment efforts should be focused carefully to catch those bad actors without sweeping up explorers who are simply trying to engage with the system.


