Best Of
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.
Re: Trailmarkers - warning received
As @tehstone-ING said, this is a complete reversal on previous stance on trail markers. Most of us have this clarification from @NianticGiffard saved:
https://community.wayfarer.nianticlabs.com/discussion/comment/155876#Comment_155876
a) A marker with the trail name on the trail <- Excellent
b) A marker with the trail name on a street <- Good
c) A marker with no trail name on the trail <- Good
d) A marker with no trail name on an open green space area <- Good enough
e) A marker with no trail name on the street <- Not Good
And if we are supposed to reject trail markers now, HOW are we supposed to reject them in the new review flow? The only thing I can think of is that they are not "Distinct" but they ARE distinct - that is how they help us follow the trail.
Re: Trailmarkers - warning received
That's a great question and I hope @NianticAaron can enlighten us here. To me, none of the first four rating items could be considered a thumbs down in the general case (though for certain nominations they might apply situationally).
This leaves us with the 3 criteria ratings, are you saying Aaron that "simple" trail markers don't meet the exercise or exploration criteria? In my opinion and that of many others, they definitely do and I have nominated a large number that fall into this subcategory and would stand by them.
Now if you're saying that such trail markers do not qualify under those two criteria, should reviewers select thumbs up for the first four and then thumbs down for the last three? Would that reject those nominations?

