Signs vs. places

I need clarification on bucket "sign" categories (place name sign, informational sign, trail marker, etc.) My understanding after a fair amount of reading is that a physical sign is a better wayspot than a pic of a general place -- i.e., picture of a trail marker rather than the trail, park name sign rather than park grounds. I get that these things are specifically locatable items that help pinpoint the actual attraction and serve as a proxy for the overall place. No problem.

However, when categorizing, I often get a choice between the sign and the actual thing. For example: hiking trail sign. Do I choose hiking trail or trail marker? Do I choose informational sign for a zoo or museum exhibit sign, or do I choose zoo/museum? Do I choose name sign for the church across a big parking lot, or do I choose church? It seems much more informative to choose the actual place the sign represents, but in some cases they can be pretty far apart, so am I really nominating the sign itself at this location?

If the sign is really a proxy for the place, why is there even a name sign category at all? Wouldn't a name sign almost always be a nomination for the underlying thing, really, and the name is just something to pin it on?

~ Thanks from a chronic overthinker

Comments

  • LukeAllStars-INGLukeAllStars-ING Posts: 4,625 Ambassador

    I would definately fo with the informational sign in zoos. Ad long as you dont submit the zoo, this category is not necessary.

    Trailmarkers can be both but there are also biking trails, so hiking trail isnt always correct.

  • QuiteConfused-INGQuiteConfused-ING Posts: 51 ✭✭

    But if they just made it hiking/biking trail (which would be nice because some are both), then why ever trail marker?

    It really comes down to do we call everything a sign (which is less helpful IMO) or pick the actual thing that's there? But if the actual thing than the sign categories are largely not needed.

  • LukeAllStars-INGLukeAllStars-ING Posts: 4,625 Ambassador

    Maybe its a lack of translation but I only got biking trail marker as an option. And thats also the only thing I see while reviewing.

  • pkmnsearch2-PGOpkmnsearch2-PGO Posts: 249 ✭✭✭
    edited April 2021

    @LordofCatchers0-PGO a sign is only needed for a POI that occupy a large area or when the POI itself isn't very clear on why it is interesting (example, The POI looks like an house but atually is a small museum).

    Straight from the source, here are the guidelines...

    Placemarkers for Large Areas

    Larger areas like dog parks or sport fields make great Wayspots, but it is important to choose the right placement of the Wayspot that respects the activity it was designed to support. Instead of placing the Wayspot in the center of an open field, park, or other large area, place it at the entrance or where there is a visible sign or placemarker. That encourages you to approach the area to visit the Wayspot, without having to enter or interfere with the activities within.


    Also, the POI can have 2 things, an "anchor" and a plaque. For example, a garden. The name sign of the garden can be his anchor but if there is another plaque about that garden (like historic info or whatever) it can also be another POI (with the name "Plaque about historic stuff about garden")

  • RedsoxMark-PGORedsoxMark-PGO Posts: 52 ✭✭✭

    I'm an overthinker too, and this has bothered me. What am I reviewing? I have decided not to worry about it too much and select the category which I think makes the most sense. A sign for a playground I classify it as a playground. But trail markers I classify as trail markers. I can't explain my logic really, other than these make sense to me. In this example I think it is to do with size. the trail can be many miles long, and generally there are many trail markers, while the playground sign is clearly a proxy for the playground.

  • QuiteConfused-INGQuiteConfused-ING Posts: 51 ✭✭

    Interesting! I get "trail marker", "hiking trail", or "biking trail" as three separate options. The first is classified as "sign", the latter two as "outdoor recreation". Reviewing in English in the US.

  • MargariteDVille-INGMargariteDVille-ING Posts: 2,848 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I don't understand the love of wayspots on signs - WHEN the point of interest itself can be a wayspot. Like, if the church building can be a wayspot, why is the sign also a good wayspot? If each of nine baseball fields have wayspots, why is the entrance sign that says "Baseball Complex" also a good wayspot? No one does anything but drive by them. Some don't even have pedestrian access.

  • TheNurseG-PGOTheNurseG-PGO Posts: 2

    Agree! As a normal human person, I think the "thing" is way more interesting than the sign pointing to the thing...

  • 0X00FF00-ING0X00FF00-ING Posts: 769 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Two examples.

    1. If, a church is a wayspot, then its sign "can" also be a wayspot -- IF that sign would be independently eligible (ie. unique architecture, artistry, etc) AND it's sufficiently distant from the church itself. The first half ("independently eligible") is something reviewers are mandated to decide upon; the second half ("sufficiently distant") is not really something we're supposed to judge ourselves.
    2. Prior to Wayfarer 3.x, we were NOT allowed to nominate "natural features". This would include smaller things ("The Tree That Owns Itself"), larger things (a local park), and magnificent things (Niagara Falls). BUT! we could use an informational sign about the location as kind of a "stand-in" for the location itself.

    Now "natural features" is NOT a rejection any more, but... most such locations that are sufficiently interesting enough to nominate are already wayspots. BUT! if their existing signage-as-wayspot is independent enough (ie. educational/informative), then surely SOME of those natural features can still be nominated independently. Well, obviously NOT Niagara Falls, that is really really NOT "safe pedestrian access", umm lol

Sign In or Register to comment.