What is the consensus on geodetic markers according to the new wayfarer 3.0 criterias?

Are they acceptable nominations? I usually don't know what to do about them. I mean I would not mind them being waypoints, but do they fit criterias? I tend to skip them, but I'd like to know how people feel about them?


  • LukeAllStars-INGLukeAllStars-ING Posts: 4,609 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I would say eligeble -> great place for exploration and exercise

  • Kroutpiick-PGOKroutpiick-PGO Posts: 367 ✭✭✭✭

    Should we make a distinction between markers on nature area, mountain summits or any "great place for exploration" vs. "regular" geodetic markers in urban and residential area? Because if we were to accept all geodetic markers, we won't see the end. (As an example, this is the official government database for the city where I live : https://geodesie.portailcartographique.gouv.qc.ca/mobile.aspx?gpz_point=-8006356.729905947,5684060.3386578625&echelle=34124&epsg=3857&gpz_nomMap=R%C3%A9seau%20g%C3%A9od%C3%A9sique%20et%20carte )

    Are all geodetic markers inherently eligible ?

    Do they all meet the "great place for exploration [or] exercise" criteria ?

    Or the submitter still need to convince reviewers that this specific marker, at this specific area is a great place for exploration/exercice?

  • Mormegil71-INGMormegil71-ING Posts: 188 ✭✭✭

    I know they were one of the special mentioned cases in the old rules. I liked that they honored old time surveys and the people who did them.

    But now, I sadly can't see that they should be even eligble. They are not great places to explore most of the time, not promoting exercise by themselves, and they are not social places.

    Not to say that they can't be placed near or at such places, but then it would be better nominate that feature, not the marker.

  • oscarc1-INGoscarc1-ING Posts: 350 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Under the new criteria? No

    A great place for exploration

    A place you love to venture out to; a destination or a placemark of local interest and importance and which makes our communities unique and shapes its identity. Somewhere or something that tells the unique story about a place, its history, its cultural meaning, or teaches us about the community we live in.

    It's not a destination or a placemark of local interest and importance, it's a generic marker used by people for work purposes (land surveying).

    A great place for exercise

    A place you'd go to get some fresh air, stretch your legs, or exercise. Places that encourage walking, exercising, and enjoying public spaces. Or something that teaches or encourages us to be our healthiest selves.

    It doesn't meet any of this criteria. If someone argues that it does, then a tree would serve the same purpose. It's not inherently for exercise and thus not acceptable under the exercise criteria.

    A great place to be social with others

    A favorite gathering place for friends or strangers alike, where you can share a drink or meal, be entertained, or watch public life happen. Or something that draws us together to share an experience in a locally and culturally relevant way.

    None of that is applicable. 99% of the time these markers are tiny things hidden in the ground and are rarely noticeable.

    The original guidelines stated "Survey Marker if on a trail or helps you explore the location". The original guidance on exploration was to explore things that were off the beaten path, yet most people submit the ones outside their home (because depending on your location, they could be required every couple hundred of meters, meaning there are millions/billions of these things all over the world). It was promoted as markers on top of mountains were the best candidates, and of course anything with actual significance (ie. if it had a historic element or an education signboard) it would be generally accepted.

    But for generic markers, no. They are mass-produced and do not fulfil any of the new criteria.

    You can see more detail about survey markers in my original analyse of them here.

  • TheFarix-PGOTheFarix-PGO Posts: 4,030 ✭✭✭✭✭

    They were listed on the Candidate Action Guide as (of all things) off-the-beaten-path tourist attractions. However, I personally never considered them attractions or even something an adventurist tourist would seek out. If they meet any criteria, it would be under the exploration category. Just remember that past guidance on what is eligible do not apply today. If they are more than a small metal disk or along a marked trail, you can probably make a better case for their eligibility.

  • Babarushki-PGOBabarushki-PGO Posts: 160 ✭✭✭

    This is such a helpful post; thank you. I’m a new reviewer and find that your comments clarify a lot for me. I’ll look into more of what you’ve contributed. I appreciate you!

  • TheZodiac007-PGOTheZodiac007-PGO Posts: 839 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited January 2021

    I clarify these as acceptable because they are historical & there is a thing called geocaching where these are important & a lot of people get a kick out of it. If never heard of it. I recommend checking it out. It’s interesting

  • oscarc1-INGoscarc1-ING Posts: 350 ✭✭✭✭✭

    See my other post about newly established estates with newly established survey markers - clearly these are not historical, and it's difficult to prove why any of the generic markers would have any historic significance.

    Plus survey markers are a niche within the geocaching community, like a veryyyy tiny subset of people. So saying 'a lot of people get a kick out of it' is also incorrect.

  • TheZodiac007-PGOTheZodiac007-PGO Posts: 839 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited January 2021

    there are thousands of caches so I wouldn’t assume only a small group of people do it. We could say the same thing about Ingress, Wizards or Pokémon Go. We can say that about a lot of things but there are no real statistics. I know a lot of people that like to geocache. I am not one of them. It’s all just opinion. Honestly. It all depends on what you’re into. Geocaches should not be submitted. Geodetic benchmarks on the other hand should. There is a major difference in the two. I have never seen a new geodetic benchmark where I live. All of the old ones have been around before 1950. So that makes them historical themselves. Also they mark elevation & if they’re in a public place they should be considered submittable on that alone. It’s not hurting anyone & it’s nice for the community to know where they are; if they’re accessible. I see “No harm in submitting them” Also in AMA they were considered acceptable

  • oscarc1-INGoscarc1-ING Posts: 350 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Age doesn't mean historical.

    There are millions/billions of these generic geodetic markers (usually every 500+ metres and on almost every street corner) around the world, very few of them have any actual historic relevance or significance (like the example I posted above). Just because they are in a public place doesn't make them automatically eligible in accordance to the Wayfarer guidelines either, as per the discussion above. You can find more information and detail about them in this comment.

    Hopefully Niantic can one day provide a real clarification, but just like everything else, if the object can be shown to be historical/significant/notable/whatever, and this can be objectively evaluated, then it would have merit in being accepted. But if something is generic, mass produced and has no actual significance itself, it is not eligible.

  • TheZodiac007-PGOTheZodiac007-PGO Posts: 839 ✭✭✭✭✭

    The kind that you submitted is an access point. I don’t consider that a geodetic marker. There is a difference between the two

  • TheZodiac007-PGOTheZodiac007-PGO Posts: 839 ✭✭✭✭✭

    If it has a cap that you open it should not be submitted. They don’t even look interesting.

  • TheZodiac007-PGOTheZodiac007-PGO Posts: 839 ✭✭✭✭✭

    They’re technically not considered geodetic benchmarks. Those are considered rods. If you open the cap there is not a geodetic benchmark, just a cone shaped rod. There is a major difference between the two & people need to educate themselves on this

  • TheZodiac007-PGOTheZodiac007-PGO Posts: 839 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I really appreciate this discussion @oscarc1-ING. shows that you care to discuss it. I appreciate that.

  • oscarc1-INGoscarc1-ING Posts: 350 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Actually it is a survey marker, confirmed by a local land surveyor in our Wayfarer group. The point is, these things look different all over the world, some are completely bland, some have ID's, some have dates (as what you said). So any sort of ruling by Niantic needs to be mindful of these nuances and address survey markers comprehensively.

  • TheZodiac007-PGOTheZodiac007-PGO Posts: 839 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited January 2021

    it is not a benchmark. I can show proof of it

  • TheZodiac007-PGOTheZodiac007-PGO Posts: 839 ✭✭✭✭✭

    The ones that have a cap open & are used to set equipment on to survey. It is not a benchmark. The benchmark will have writing on it. I have worked as a surveyor as well

  • TheZodiac007-PGOTheZodiac007-PGO Posts: 839 ✭✭✭✭✭

    The difference is benchmark compared to survey mark

  • Raachermannl-INGRaachermannl-ING Posts: 1,034 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Difficult topic. I won't give an absolute answer. It's a bit of a scale possible there:

    This one is 5* in all categories without any discussions needed. Few hundred years old, one of 158 main geodetic markers of the Saxony, proven by wiki (see Nr 136).

    This one is a medieval border marker and should be worth at least 4*, maybe 5* with good texts. On two opposing sites the two fieves bordering each other are depicted by two letters each. On the side there is a number, so this is Stone No261. The first letter shows the type of the fief (H in this case for Herrschaft, barony may fit as translation) and the second one its name (A for Altlobeda). The backside shows GW, so this means Gemeinde (=parish) Wöllnitz.

    These stones are in most cases only rare to find. This one is a bit special ..... we followed todays hiking trails and starting with this one wie found 261-169, few numbers from the 270s, few ones around 300, and 314-320. Between two sequential stones is ~100m. It's somewhere in the forest, so no need for rules like objects installed in the series, but it's okay to think this way, if there are more of them nearby.

    this one is one of todays more important geodetic fixpoints. Some of them have gps stuff in them - I think this one too, because of the metal seal at the granite stone... In my oppinion they touch the criterion exploration, although not being bullseyes but, they are intresting enough and with good texts players may learn something. So 3* or 4* should be achievable with something like that.

    The 1*s are todays marker stones of small properties, in my region that are 10cm x 10cm x 60cm granite stones with a cross carved in them. Also 1* are few cm small metal plagues somewhere on the streets. They may have official symbols and nice words on them, but that's generic infrastructure and only startng points of the work for geodesists...

  • itamernz-INGitamernz-ING Posts: 51 ✭✭✭

    My heart sank this morning when I logged in and my first review was of a little NSW survey marker. Managed 4 reviews before being back in cooldown.

    It's getting bad enough that I may just change my settings so I don't get any Australian reviews.

  • Snowroo-PGOSnowroo-PGO Posts: 10 ✭✭

    NO, not unless it is of historical significance and can obviously be seen as such in which case it wouldn't simply be survey marker #5797985529937. It'd be historic survey marker by XYZ who was the first to do blah and here is a plaque.

    This is like having a pokie stop for a street sign or a traffic light. Most are not unique, they aren't great locations to explore and they just take away from the experience.

    It's pretty clear which of these images should be accepted and which shouldn't. Perhaps there should be a limit to how many in a given area.

  • HaramDays-PGOHaramDays-PGO Posts: 1,471 ✭✭✭✭✭

    You guys should just ask Lithgow to stop submitting and getting survey marks approved so they can stop being featured in the area. I hear and read so much complaining about survey marks but no one ever gets to the core issue deep down. For so long as a survey mark is featured in the front web page of Wayfarer, they are presumably "a new beautiful example of a cultural or historic landmark that is easy to access for all."

    Some of the usernames of people submitting up there actually do show up on Wayfarer, so they're not hidden. Reach out. Go on. Say hello and tell them to stop submitting survey marks... yeah good luck with that. As long as they remain featured wayspots, they will undoubtedly stay rampart and people will have the impression that they are being broadly accepted so people grasp at the opportunity for more Pokestops.

    Some survey marks are absolutely eligible though. A pretty one on a hall and another one overlooking Sydney Harbour (both pictured below), plus all your other standard trig points. Some of them are found on lookouts, nice hills and cool observation areas. But some people absolutely hate "pokiestops" that they can't access easily, so they reject your standard trigs up mountaintops and hills like I've mentioned in yet another post about survey marks.

    Niantic has had numerous opportunities to address the periodic posts that rants on about survey marks. But no bueno. Frankly, many reviewers nowadays find survey marks to be a more safer nomination to get approved than something like a trail marker or a footbridge or things like comic/gaming stores or small statues that meet the updated criteria because they get the explicit content treatment instead.

    Much of Sydney is going through a feedback loop which is quite approving towards survey markers. It doesn't help that it's often just this Wayfarer community that are highly against it, where other communities (mainly Pokemon-Go oriented, the Global Wayfarers Facebook group, and Western Australia) are very approving towards these.

Sign In or Register to comment.