Best Of
Re: Trailmarkers - warning received
LAZY? Hiking miles and miles and miles to submit trail markers to encourage the community to come out and explore the natural beauty of preserved forest is the opposite of that.
Re: Trailmarkers - warning received
Thank you for the clarification here. I know that while many disagree with what you've said, I do appreciate the attempt to bring clarity to the Wayfarer Team's (current) stance here.
But... to echo what others have already said, this runs counter to previous clarifications that have been posted on this forum. And yet again, this clarification has been posted as a reply to an obscure thread on the Wayfarer forums and is almost certainly destined to become some kind of esoteric knowledge that a fraction of the community has, leading to more confusion and inconsistency in nominations and voting.
The shifting of goalposts resulting in confusion around the criteria is one of the main reasons people seem to mention when it comes to not participating in Wayfarer.
Re: Trailmarkers - warning received
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). 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. The second point is how many of these trail markers are there? Are they distinguishable and far enough apart that it doesn’t make the others any less unique? The next thing we consider is if they are permanent. Stickers and printouts are not considered permanent and may be rejected. Hope this clarifies the confusion.
NianticAaron
Re: Trailmarkers - warning received
I thought we moved away from "this is eligible" and "this is not eligible" stances unless it meets the specific rejection criteria, to using our best judgement? This clarification seems to contradict using our best judgement and reverses a long standing consensus of what types of trail markers are worthy of considering as meeting criteria for exploration.
Even Aaron making the comment "rate higher" seems to hearken back to the old review workflow with the star rating. The comment also makes it sound like a trail marker needs to have an entire back story to be considered "good." Wouldn't any official marker along a trail encourage exploration? Wouldn't a marker that just has a unique identifying number help promote exploration of a trail?
Re: Trailmarkers - warning received
@NianticAaron - if you're going to reverse the guidance back to needing trail names wouldn't it be both helpful and courteous to the player base to publish this?
There has been clear guidance from Niantic that all trailmakers are valid - I quote "we consider any marker on a hiking trail as acceptable since our goal is to have folks explore. Even a small marker on a trail will encourage players to cover more of the trail if there are more Wayspots on the way."
Re: Trailmarkers - warning received
My question is are you using "good candidate" and "eligible candidate" interchangeably here? I can understand that a trail marker with just a mile marker and no information in the description about the trail itself may not be a desirable or "good" nomination, but does that mean they are ineligible? Further, is an ineligible nomination the same as an "abusive" nomination? I think a bit of clarification around questions like these could put the community at ease here. Making a discursive distinction in the email sent in response could help as well. As everyone has pointed out, the "educational" emails need a lot of workshopping.
Re: Trailmarkers - warning received
I want to point out that my issue is NOT with any particular Niantic employee. My issue is with the stance that has been communicated here. Humans are allowed to be wrong. But they should admit when they are and learn from that.
Re: Trailmarkers - warning received
I agree. Trail markers promote exercise and exploration and even socialization. I would bet that most trail markers are not super unique and just have a number/arrow/colored stripe, etc. The trail markers I see in my areas are only arrows either be in the form of a colored sticker or the plastic arrows nailed to wooden poles or even a disc with a number embedded in a wooden pole. They are at every turn of the trail, so, you know, you don't get lost and know where to go. So, yes, of course there are going to be loads of them on trails, unless the trail is in a circle or a straight line. They are there to indicate when you need to turn, so if there are a lot of turns on trails and crossroads of course there will be many of them in the area of the trails. While this brings a bit of clarity into what they are looking for now I agree, it is still against the previous guidance on trail markers. If a trail marker is a place holder for the trail itself and is promoting exploration and exercise does it really matter how boring it is? An arrow in a color or a number is a clear indication of a trail and 99% of them can be backed up with an organization and website to show the corresponding arrows and numbers match the trail markers. Besides, as mentioned those stickers are there for years and if one is damaged the organization quickly fixes them. How one earth is a sticker trail marker any less permanent than some of the graffiti that is approved and often painted over or could be painted over?
Re: Trailmarkers - warning received
Trail markers and trails meet the EXERCISE criteria. THEY DO NOT HAVE TO BE INTERESTING. Walking around a round track is not interesting at all, but a round walking track is still eligible because it is a PLACE TO EXERCISE.
As for how many and far apart the trail markers are - yes, there has to be some level of reasonable distance. For example, if there is a crossroads of 2 trails and there are markers at all 4 corners of the intersection that basically serve the same purpose, we probably only need 1 of those on the map. But if the OFFICIAL OWNERS OF THE TRAIL have decided to provide markers at "short" intervals - I see no need to override them.
AS A PERSON WITH A BAD KNEE, EVERY SINGLE MARKER THAT BECOMES A POI ENCOURAGES ME TO KEEP WALKING, EXPLORING, AND EXERCISING. I'm going to copy phrases directly from Niantic's own website:
"We believe we can use technology to lean into the ‘reality’ of augmented reality — encouraging everyone to get outside and connect with the world around us."
"From Google Earth to Pokémon GO, we’ve always been explorers"
"The goal: make the world more magical through exploration, exercise, and real-world social interaction. The result: Niantic Labs begins as a startup within Google."
The way you are evaluating and denying trail markers goes against all of this. You are DISCOURAGING EXERCISE, DISCOURAGING EXPLORATION, and GIVING PEOPLE NO REASON TO CONTINUE INTERACTING WITH THE OUTDOORS.
I literally cannot wrap my head around why the team is suddenly so off brand with trails and trail markers.

