Live in Wayfarer 3.1 is a new set of acceptance criteria! Please browse the information in this category with caution as it is in reference to the previous review guidelines. To learn more about the new criteria, see here: https://niantic.helpshift.com/a/wayfarer/
Survey Markers
Ren859-PGO
Posts: 7 ✭✭
Can we get written verification on survey marker submissions on if they are acceptable or not acceptable POI's. Been battling with reviewers on getting a few passed and from the history I find on Ingress forums supposedly they are acceptable.
Answers
It was in the old guide in OPR, but it's no longer written down anywhere accessible that I know of.
Yes, old guidance hasn't been superseded. They are eligible, but they are often difficult verify the location.
In the UK we have several types of survey marker - from this sort of thing that I'm happy to accept and submit: https://www.bench-marks.org.uk/s5122.jpg down to this https://s0.geograph.org.uk/geophotos/03/82/21/3822186_07b6b255.jpg Which I'm not so sure of.
Niantic was very much referring to the second photo when their guidance. Your first example, to be honest, looks to be a sticker on the side of a post and is not meant to be permanent. Survey markers are meant to be at key points from which geologists and land surveyors take measurements. While they can take many forms, most of them are bronze plates that are secured into the ground or concrete, though according to Wikipedia, one marker is actually a sprinkler head. 😶
The first is a witness post and is generally placed next to the brass survey disc to make the disc easier to find. The disc is the eligible waypoint, the witness post is not.
There is a survey marker near my town that's been accepted as a wayspot. I have no issue with them myself and the one that I know of near my town does actually look rather nice and ornate. Though I guess not all will look as grand. Given their potential obscrucity, some people may not know how to vote on them as they don't come up very often. I'd give the ones you showed a favourable review for sure.
Well from an outsider perspective, not knowing any survey marker like these, I wouldn't accept both you've listed.
Maybe if I've gotten the submission to review and it had some support info to describe what it is or maybe a website I could find their location (if it exits) or further info explaining what are they and their purpose, yea.
I love paths, trails, wooden paths and stuff like that, which helps you walk and actually adventure somewhere, but they are hard to vote yea :(
The first one is known as a flush bracket and installed at key points by the Ordnance Survey for mapping elevations in the 1930s - they're not that common and were amongst the first proper geodesic markers. The latter is just a benchmark - again used for measuring height above a known datum - still pretty commonly found. As I said I have no problem with accepting the former, but I'm unsure on the latter.
Wow, this is a super Insightful reply haha. Thanks for the info I sure didn't know that. But again, the photo can help the reviewer sees that, the supporting photo and description also helps in that, but it's cool.
We learning everyday. 🤓
I've had a few approved; it helps to focus on the more permanent disks and monuments rather than the fiberglass witness posts (and naturally, make sure the supporting photo shows the marker rather than just being a photo of a field). The more substantial, the better
Many of these were installed in the 1930's-50's, and often (in the US at least) have the date stamped on them... that can help give the nomination some historic appeal.
Also, I usually have better luck with markers found at prominent geographic points or political boundaries.
The latter is a ‘Cut Benchmark’ of which there are many thousands in the UK. They were used in the original levelling project which is the forerunner of GPS mapping. They have a cool history but probably fall into the ‘mass produced’ category. I submitted one but the UK reviewers didn’t like it. They aren’t maintained or added to but they are all mapped. There is a type akin to the US survey marks called Berntsens. I may try one of those soon. This is the UK database https://www.bench-marks.org.uk/
This is a UK Berntsen survey marker.
The latter is a ‘cut benchmark’ There are many thousands across the UK. They have a cool history with the levelling project to map the geography but they aren’t unique and are mass produced. They are no longer in use or added to. I’ve tried to get them through voting as a test and the UK community didn’t like them. There are markers akin to the US survey markers you can find More info here https://www.bench-marks.org.uk/
The first image is a "witness post"
It helps tell people that a survey marker is nearby. It acts as a waypoint for the markers but yes focus should be on the actual survey marker.
This is truly annoying. For reference, the links included was this thread and the other link is the information regarding the survey marker by NOAA/NGS (https://www.ngs.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/ds_mark.prl?PidBox=DM4266). @NianticCasey-ING , can you please clarify on these so we can stop this battle with reviewers.
For some reason my previous comment disappeared after I did an edit, so I have to go through it all over again...
Survey markers came up as a point of discussion in my local Wayfarer chat recently with this nomination appearing in Wayfarer:
I looked up the geodetic/survey marker questions under the AMA's and the old OPR guidelines. Here are the only mentions of it:
Q: What's the difference between Geodetic Marker and Survey Marker? When should I use which category in OPR?
A: I spoke to our OPR team, their response was, “Consider they the same for OPR.”
5 stars: Mountain top marker; permanently attached logbooks, structures, or signs
4 stars: Survey Marker if on a trail or helps you explore the location
The 4 star guidance makes it a bit more conditional with the exploration aspect.
In our chat, we had somebody that uses these survey markers for work, so we received some good insight on their functionality and traits, with the most interesting thing being that they could be used to measure the accuracy of GPS.
My thinking on the matter is as follows:
They simply look too bland and generic. With over 140,000 in Victoria (Australia) and potentially over 1 million of them in Australia, they are fundamentally mass-produced objects.
The interesting aspects of them are not at the forefront, hence all the questions from our communities as most of us don't know anything about them. If it had an information board at the very least, it would make it visually distinct and informative.
It's basically the equivalent of a street light. Nothing interesting on its face, but under the cover, it's a wonderful world of electricity and engineering. You could (probably) tap into it and measure the electricity like how these markers potentially allow one to measure their GPS. But street lights are bland, boring and mass-produced also. Yet, they are not eligible. The same analogy can be applied with utility boxes and other generic infrastructure.
I would be concerned about accepting them and opening the floodgates to such common markers. Reviewing would be painful as it would be difficult to verify the location of every single one using Google Street View, and it's likely that everybody would abuse the system by nominating one outside their home just to create a wayspot.
The markers themselves don't really promote exploration/activity, definitely not like how a trail marker does, unless you know you are specifically looking for them (which you would only do if you worked with them).
I would be inclined to accept them if there was actually something significant about them (eg. mountaintop markers) and/or if they provided information to an observer at that point. Otherwise, I would consider them generic, mass-produced and not significant enough to be eligible. This includes the markers that have ID's printed on the cover, that information doesn't have any educational value to an objective person looking at them.
So I went outside to look at the survey marker just outside my home:
Hidden amongst the grass, generic "Survey Marker" marking on it. Nothing special.
Inside, it's a wonderful world of dirt! Again, nothing special. Beneath the dirt is the surveying equipment, but it doesn't mean anything to anybody that doesn't already know what they do or how to work them. It's not a point of interest.
In summary:
Pro's:
Con's:
And as mentioned earlier, visible ID's don't make them unique, as the ID still gives no educational or informative value to anybody looking at the markers.
I would be inclined to accept survey markers IF they are significant (such as on a mountain-top) or can provide some actual value to their existence to an observer (such as accompanied by an info board). I would reject them if they are generic, mass-produced and have no significance (just simply existing isn't significant).
@NianticCasey-ING It would be great to hear your opinions on this. Especially with all the information presented here. Would my assessment be fair, or would there be other considerations? Thanks for your time.
I agree with your Pro's, but from a UK perspective not all of your cons
As like Faversham71, there's differences here in the United States.
**Generic and bland in appearance- As you can see from my photos, each is specific to the actual survey marker (including having it's name printed on the marker).
**If it had an information board at the very least, it would make it visually distinct and informative- We do. https://www.ngs.noaa.gov/NGSDataExplorer/ .
**Mass produced object, over 140,000 in Victoria. NSW requires them to be within every 500m in urban areas and 1km in rural areas and practically on every street corner. Potentially well over 1 million survey markers in Australia alone! Provide no informative or educational value- You can look up the name mentioned above of the survey marker and even where it's placed and all historical data attached to that marker. This makes each marker very unique being no two markers have the same information on them.
**Do not promote exploration or adventure- All I need to do is post this site to prove otherwise. https://www.geocaching.com/mark/
Relying on external sources to provide you with the detailed information on those survey markers does not count as the markers themselves do not provide informational or educational value to an observer looking at the object.
I can go online and look up anything to find more detail about anything. That doesn't mean that a lamp post is informative because I can find details of the lamp post online. The information has to be available to the user then and there, at the object.
The https://www.ngs.noaa.gov/NGSDataExplorer/ website just shows how common those objects are, and the information given when clicking on them doesn't tell a user what they do or what their historical value is. These websites are already a register of survey markers, we don't need to pollute Niantic games with more of the same, generic, mass-produced non-interesting objects.
The NGS database just goes to show that these should be individually judged on their noteworthiness and historic value. The benchmark on the sidewalk a few blocks from my house, that would be a stretch to say it's worthy of being approved as a wayspot. But the Zero Milestone, or the Louisiana Purchase marker in Arkansas, or a state corner (some of which were surveyed by George Washington himself!) or the one pictured below that was used as the baseline for all of the surveys of the midwest, those are on the extreme other end of the historically significant spectrum.
Read up on the information here (https://www.geocaching.com/mark/#Whysearch). It explains how important these items are to society as a whole. And for it to appear on the NGS website it goes through quite a long process (which this is a government owned item anyways which would make it qualify considering government related items are passable). Most POI's are items you have to look up more information on (like charities for the local community, which are passable per guidelines). Just because YOU do not know the importance of these items does not mean they are not important (and it's clear you didn't read the datasheet on the items which is provided when you click on the survey marker location on the NGS site). They are very inserting and play a huge role in the shaping of history and building alike. The fact that there is a market for survey marker (benchmark) hunting in general proves that all by itself it is worth while hunting for.
Just a quick look into the information each survey marker provides:
This one was approved today. Below you can find it on the NGS map and see it on street view:
The information on this survey marker (besides the uniquely printed survey marker itself) is located here on the datasheet: https://www.ngs.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/ds_mark.prl?PidBox=DR3819
And if you don't understand what you are reading (which that link gives the full history and details on the survey marker like when it was placed, why, etc) then here is a how to from the NGS site as well: https://www.ngs.noaa.gov/DATASHEET/dsdata.pdf
As an update, my other survey marker passed today (funny enough, it's the one I posted in the opening post). Well, there's some hope at least.
My NZ neighbourhood must have hundreds of those survey markers - Council puts them in anytime you want to get a building permit. Part of me loves the idea that they're ok, the other part knows I'd never need to go anywhere ever again.
I'd agree with the mass produced (even if ultimately personalised) verdict and in the case below it was both on a road and adjacent a private property.
Would you be embarrassed to explain why you're hanging around a spot if it was one of these?
In the meantime players are getting stroppy about their interpretation of the rules.
I just want to offer a bit of feedback on this submission, as I think some general improvements might help it get accepted.
First of all, I would take the primary photo with the hinge at the left instead of the top (currently the text is sideways, which may lead reviewers to reject for photo orientation). The description is rather bland. If I were nominating this, I'd put in some facts from the NGS database like year installed, lat/long, and elevation. Perhaps also mention the purpose of the access hatch--I didn't know prior to this thread that such "hatched" survey markers were a thing.
With tough nominations like these, it helps if the submission is as good as possible.
Since there's been a lot of discussion around survey markers, I thought I'd try my luck:
By the wording of the guidelines it should have been eligible - it's visually unique (this type of survey marker is known as a section control mark, so not as common as your kerb side ones), it's on a mountain top (although not a trig), it's in a rural area (nature reserve in fact), it's got a plate in the middle as well as poles, it's visible on satellite view, and it's searchable by name on the local government mapping service. Got knocked back for temporary/seasonal display and not meeting criteria. I don't plan to resubmit it but out of curiosity, would you guys have passed it? Mind you I've seen a few of these yellow SC survey markers as existing wayspots around another nature reserve on the other side of town.
Quite a few people in my local group have been testing the waters. We know trigs are an easy pass, none of them have been able to get the puck-sized ones through yet, which is also not surprising. Personally I'm not a fan of the puck-sized ones mostly due to their position. Half of the time the submitter places it in the middle of a road, and 90% of the time the actual mark is on the kerb and I'd hate to be the one trying to get in the right spot to ultra strike it.
I myself will stick to trigs though, will only try survey markers again if I'm really desperate, after all, I love making gyms out the woop woop. 😅
This is a very in depth and robust discussion. Very enjoyable read.
Any chance we could have some official word on Survey/Geodetic Markers? Bumping this thread for that reason...
Up this discussion until we got an official clarification from Niantic.
Bump. Need some insight @NianticCasey-ING