It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Sign In with Ingress Sign In with Pokémon GO
What were the reasons given for the rejection?
“Doesn’t meet criteria”
Footbridges on trails don't automatically meet the criteria just by existing. You still have to make the case for them in the supporting statement; otherwise they are just part of the trail's infrastructure. What did you include in your supporting statement?
Call it a trail marker (there is one on the sign in the photo) and it will probably get through.
I had a footbridge get denied on an upgrade (was shocked and pissed at the time) the wifey submitted same footbridge the same day it got rejected. She upgraded and it went right through the next day. She tweaked the photo a little but really it was the same submission.
Resubmit, maybe a little better photo or description would help but sometime the agreement fishers get you. I would bet that you ran into a group of them. Luck (bad luck) of the draw. It will go through.
I would take a picture more focused on the bridge itself, at first glance I thought the submission was for the marker. I understand why you included it in the photo but I would angle myself to make the bridge the main focus with the marker off to the side.
Interesting. Whilst I find a footbridge generally more interesting than a trail marker, trail markers are almost always accepted. Whilst for bridges, you will get reviewers saying the bridge is mass-produced or not interesting. So I agree the footbridge makes a better photo, but I think the trail marker has a better chance of being accepted.
Trail markers are almost always accepted where I live too but after reading discussions on this forum, it appears that is not at all the case in other areas. I figured maybe this person lives in one of those areas and that is why the chose the bridge instead or maybe there is an accepted trail marker close by that looks the same and they don’t want to risk duplication.
I feel the bridge and trail marker should both be easy acceptances so it depends on what the op wants to sub.
If we want to get crazy, op could submit the trail marker first and if the other side of the bridge is far enough away, they could submit the bridge from the other side.
I don’t think a lot of people here will enjoy me giving that advice though.
Trail markers have been named by the november ama as eligible. Foot bridges do bot have a supporting ama currently to say they are eligible. So unless its unique by means of history or architecture it will be a hard pass for the bridge
That looks like an eligible submission to me, resubmit.
Foot bridges were clarified to meet criteria, they didnt just auto on and now auto off a switch to make them eligible or ineligible... they still meet the criteria of exploration if youre able to do the critical thinking yourself instead of being spoon fed decisions from Niantic.
To the OP: as already stated by others, you photo has a trail marker in focus but you submitted the bridge out of focus, choose one or the other
Not everything needs clarification. That's partly how we wound up in the mess of things being categorically eligible or ineligible. Unfortunately, Niantic has already been making things harder by making awkward statements like "plazas are eligible and should have multiple shops." Or @NianticCasey-ING's frequent contradictions regarding cemetery guidelines.
I love submitting footbridges. I've submitted many on trails, old highway bridges converted into pedestrian bridges, a footbridge in a marina, and one in a generic shipping plazas. The ones in parks or on trails had supporting statements about encouraging outdoor exploration and an active and healthy, and the ones in less "exciting" places dwelled on being used for scenic views and even as the setting for family & senior pictures. I can only think of a few, as a reviewer, that I've rejected.
If a location is somehow important to the community, it would also be a good candidate. Historical guidance encouraged locations, structures, pieces of art, etc. that are important for exploration, promotes exercise or facilitates social connections. With regard to bridges generally, if it is accessible by foot and expected to be used as part of a named path or trail, it would meet criteria.
A little common sense goes a long way. Like understanding the term “favorite coffee shop” doesn’t mean it needs a Michelin star to become a Wayspot 😂.
I’ve rejected a few “footbridges” where it legit looks like a three boards where thrown down in the woods. Most of them however are nearby to trail markers and are obviously part of trail systems. Those are 100%’s in my book.
Clarifications are still useful though - particularly in situations where submissions also meet rejection criteria. This kind of generic wooden bridge appears to hold no historical significance and is not interesting or unique, therefore its meet would meet the criteria to reject it on that basis.
Trail markers are also not interesting or unique however Niantic have clarified that they should be accepted as proxies for the walking trail itself - which does meet the criteria for encouraging exercise. (However I believe that plain directional marker arrows or generic 'public footpath' signs remain ineligible, regardless of whether they encourage exercise or not).
If bridges are acceptable proxies because they allow you to get from one part of the trail to another, are gates now also viewed as being eligible candidates? And if gates are now eligible, are steps eligible too? I know this sounds like a nonsense extension to the argument but I've seen at least 2 sets of steps submitted recently on the basis that they are part of a trail. Would people accept a set of steps cut into a grassy bank as a valid wayspot? What makes bridges eligible but steps ineligible?
@Roli112-PGO you mentioned that footbridges had been clarified to meet the criteria. Do you have the original reference to that clarification?
It's been removed from a previous AMA but this was the text...
What types of bridges are and aren’t eligible?
In general, think about the specific bridge and whether it’s a clear and differentiable location for other players to find. Also, if a location is somehow important to the community, it would also be a good candidate. Our guidance for most locations is whether a location, structure, piece of art, etc. is important for exploration, promotes exercise or facilitates social connections. With regard to bridges generally, if it is accessible by foot and expected to be used as part of a named path or trail, it would meet criteria. Bridges that primarily serve cars and don’t have pedestrian access are not eligible.
I don't see anything wrong with it, I would've approved it. a footbridge on a public trail is simply a feature of the trail, and as much a landmark as any trail marker (which is conveniently right next to the bridge in this case).
The photo shows the bridge and it's identifying marker, which is the whole object as a player would see it. I don't know if they want you climbing under the bridge or something and composing a stirring photograph, but at the end of the day this is just crowdsourcing and you get what you pay for. what you have is recognizable and complete, which is perfectly fine for a exploration-focused submission.
The description is concise, informative, and formatted (thank you, I hate when they're empty or just a bunch of spelling/grammar errors). I can only assume the location pin is accurate and it's not a duplicate, so no problem there. and whoever said it's not architecturally or culturally significant can move right on out of here. public hiking trails, as well as their markers and features, have always been widely accepted. part of the whole point of GO is to encourage players to use these exact things.
The reason why they were named was because it also meets rejection criteria since its generic and mass produced 🤷♂️. So ill keep doing what i do.
Also i have submitted footbridges in the past when they were explicitly named eligible by niantic. Now that they dont have a supporting statement saying they are to be accepted they can easily be rejected as mass produced :)
The reason they were clarified was to help explain what criteria could make them eligible, you can see that here. They dont magically lose what could make them eligible, especially when described with such detail.
3.1 didnt magically make past clarified things ineligible, it was meant to allow for ambiguity and critical thinking which you seem to be failing at. While i don't blame you for rejecting low effort nominations, any that clearly meet criteria, or are proved to meet criteria, should be approved
Critically thinking you can use the rejection criteria as well. I get we have a difference of opinion but don’t try to insult me lol 😂. But yes they did say past clarifications were not to be used. But that would take reading
These two very different bridge conversations going on simultaneously is cracking me up. I get why people are hesitant on the other bridge but this bridge is beautiful! Seriously, IMO the problem with the current submission is the focus of the picture but if the bridge was photographed in a different angle, it would be such a wonderful photo!
I get bridges haven’t been specifically acknowledged anywhere (I think?) since the criteria refresh but that also means they haven’t been deemed ineligible anywhere either.
This bridge clearly creates a path over a river/canal, without which patrons of the trail would not be able to continue their EXERCISE while EXPLORING the trail. Also, if one were to stop on the bridge and use it as a SCENIC VIEWPOINT, they might look down into the river/canal and see CULTURALLY relevant critters in the water or along the bank.
I think this bridge is great. Or if op changes their mind and wants to sub the trail marker, that’s great too!
This discussion is interesting because it brings into focus how differently we all think, even about something as simple as what "mass produced" means.
Very, very rarely are footbridges like these mass produced. They are built by someone - park staff, Boy Scouts, or other volunteers - based on need. Even when you have several footbridges located in the same area in the same park, they will usually show small differences. Each is custom made longer or shorter, wider or narrower, with railings or without, depending on the circumstances of the area that needs to be crossed.
Even the most simple footbridge is usually visually unique if you take the time to look at it.
Previous guidance gave pictures on what types of things were considered "generic and mass produced." The pictures included street signs and parking lot bollards. It would be easy to consider a few 2x4s strewn on a trail "mass produced" but I've never understood people who try to argue footbridges or playgrounds to be mass produced.
Well generally all footbridges have the same design. I never said anything about playgrounds so not sure where you get that from(they generally all have different colours and layouts so not sure where you get that from). But keep doing what your doing it seems to work for you and i’ll keep doing what I do as it works for me. Cool 👍🤷♂️
Why is it that those who say that reviewers should engaged in "critical thinking" also think that reviewers should blindly accept all footbridges without any form of scrutiny? That's not how critical thinking works.
I don't see where anyone in here has ever suggested blindly accepting all footbridges, but I understand that doesn't for your narrative.
Same design doesn't necessarily mean "mass produced," 🙆
Thanks for targeting me, but make sure to read all my comments before you attempt to put words in my mouth...
Is it on Google street view? Might be helpful to submit a photosphere showing it’s location if not. Even if it wasn’t rejected for its location, it helps convince a lot of reviewers to rate it better.
why are people even debating mass produced or not? it's a feature and marker of a historic and culturally significant hiking trail. unless this submission is flanked by several more interesting stops, it should've been approved, even if the picture and subject are a little bland. even if it were a prefab mass-produced bridge (it's not) it would *still* qualify to be accepted. it's why a baseball field is acceptable even though it looks *identical* to every other baseball field.
not every stop is a work of art or an example of innovative architecture and engineering. the reason footbridges all look alike is because they're friggin bridges. the value of function outweighs the importance of form.
also "mass-produced" means there are many identical pre-fabricated instances of an object out there (e.g. fire hydrants). this is a wooden construction built by hand for this specific location. no matter how you spin it, it's not mass-produced. if you want it to be prettier then go out there and paint it or something, but in the meantime quit complaining
Its a generic bridge design which allows people to replicate as many of then as they want. Their are lots of identical looking bridges to this near me across streams and fields. Its not a unique bridge in the slightest.
The submission has more than likely failed due to a mishmash of people thinking the picture is poor and the bridge doesnt look unique.
As submitted the OP has unfortunately turned a 4* candidated of a trail marker into a marginal candidate at best.