It is impossible to get cycling trails approved in Germany
Xmacke7x-ING
Posts: 220 ✭✭✭✭
Since the criteria changes and the November AMA I cycled along all cycling trails in my hometown and nominated those trails at the trail markers I have found. All in all I have made 40 nominations on more than 50km of cycling trails. In the northern part of the town the review time is pretty fast. It only takes two months until a decision. So I have got some decisions there. 10 got rejected so far with 3 of them twice. This means I got 13 rejections so far. None of thse nominations got accepted so far.
Those trail markers are mostly located at important junctions where two or more cycling trails meet. All those cycling trails are touristic orientated trails. Which should be eliglbe under the new criteria.
Basically with all the nominations I have followed the same pattern. I have mentioned the trails and there length in the descriptions. Sometimes I have focused on on of the trail and gave some more informations about the trail. In the supporting informations I gave a link to the route and a route description.
I have made sure with the supporting information and the supporting image that the location is easily identifable on the map.
Here is an example of a rejection. The rejection mail gave me two rejection reasons. The first one was does not meet criteria and the second one was innapropiate location. This trail marker represents three cycling trails and leads towards two nod points. I have marked them red here for better visualbility. (I have edited this picture only for this post. It is not the original image I used in the nomination) I mentioned those trails by their names in the description. The location should have been easily identifieable. You can see the shadow of the trail marker on the satelite image and there is a photosphere.
If I understand the AMA correctly, these nominations should have been accepted. If I got the AMA wrong, then I do not know how to get cycling trails over here approved. Those cycling trails have no maps, no trail heads or any other possible object which could be a representative of the trail.
@NianticCasey-ING Since there is no indication of a new AMA soon. I would appreciate if there could be an official word on cycling trail nominations. The problem with the November AMA is that there are no examples we can point to, when nominating those trails. I fear that the problem is that cycling trail markers are standardized here, which means they all look very similar. Most people probably envision something fancy when they read the AMA. Maybe you could clarify, if those standardized trail markers fit the conditions you mentioned in the AMA.
Comments
the main problem would be that there are no Trail Names.
Trail names are not needed according to the november ama. Logos and codes do the job, too. They clearly represent the trail, like the name of the trail does. But this is something Niantic should clarify, too.
But anyway on one of those plaques there is the trail name next to the logo. You can not see it in the picture I posted because of the low quality of the screenshot. But in the original picture of the nomination the name is clearly visible. The name is Erlebnisrundweg Lüner Lippeaue.
But the others have names, too. The second one is named Radrundweg A7 and the third one is named Römer-Lippe-Route.
I only have one suggestion: link the November 2020 AMA in the extra details for each submission. I would do this for all In Queue submissions before they move into In Voting. And I would be sure to do it for any you resubmit.
So yes they are eligible without trail names. How ever when you nominate something that is just a logo and a number you run the risk of the trail marker being rejected as being generic looking and obviously mass produced. I’m a big advocate for trail markers but these don’t exactly stand out to me as a great spot to nominate. Also if it id only a cycling trail it is not meant for pedestrian access which is a must for any poi. Yes you can get to it by bike, thats great. But if someone can’t walk that trail as well it kind of loses its pedestrian access.
Normally those cycling trails are shared with pedestrians. So there is pedestrian access.
But those trail markers are the only things which lets you notice that there is a trail.
There are generic looking because the trail markers are standardized. They all look the same in this part of Germany because this helps the cyclist to find them.
Are they trails or are they routes? Over here (in the UK) we have the National Cycle Network which is basically a bunch of cycle routes that connect up the UK. They are essentially a road network for bikes (although they have pedestrian access and some utilise named walking trails) but on the whole they are no different to the road network for cars so don't meet criteria. Are these cycle routes something similar?
They are trails. They often have a theme. They are part of the touristic network of the region. They often lead to sights or follow interesting natural features.
Because of that they should meet two criteria. They are a great place to excersise and a great place to explore
they are routes.
these nodes are meant to be used to create your own trail.
In which case then, they are likely being rejected as the reviewers are seeing them as bike 'roads' and not a trail.
I do not understand. I put in the supporting information that those are touristic trails. Only the nods are not trails. But this trail marker marks three cycling trails and leads to two different nods
We have the same problem here in Belgium. Those node networks are created by the tourist office for people to explore the region while exercising. They are basically a network of nodes that are connected by trails. They are not infrastructure to get you to a certain destination. They meet 2 of the eligibility criteria, yet they are almost always rejected here.
Most, if not all, of these trails/routes (Whatever you want to call them. The criteria is about promoting exercise. Even if you don't want to call them trails, they are still eligible.) can be used by pedestrians, so that is not the problem. Similar networks for walking get rejected here as well.
It would surprise me if even half the reviewers actually bother to read the supporting information.