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/

Interesting trail markers without trail name

(I'm guessing that this has been discussed before, but I'm new to this forum and I couldn't find the exact same question that I'm about to ask. So please forgive me if this is a frequently topic.)

The guideline on trail markers according to Niantic is: Trailheads, trail markers, mile/distance markers, etc. - Acceptable, if they have a trail name on them. Simple mile markers along a trail with nothing other than a number should be rejected.

I feel like most people see this as, accept if the trail marker contains the trail name, reject otherwise. I personally don't feel like that this is what is meant. I interpret it as: Trail markers with name should be accepted, very simple trail markers (example: with only one number or arrow) should be rejected. There are a whole bunch of interesting trail markers however that don't contain the trails name but are so much more than a simple trail marker with only one number.

The following image is a trail marked I got from the internet as example what I think shouldn't be a wayspot. It only contains 2 arrows and besides that there is no info.


The following image is a very simple trail marker I submitted, with the name of the trail. It got accepted and I'm happy with that, but in my opinion there are way more interesting trail markers without name that get rejected for that reason.

One of those trail markers is the following. Those are trail markers that allows people to create their own route, by choosing what 'Knooppunt' they want to follow. From this trail marker you can go to 4 other Knooppunten, from which you again can go to X other Knooppunten, and so on. The 'trail' is called 'Knooppunten route' and this is Knooppunt 97. So it has no real name of the trail on it, only the name of the point that you're at. I would say that this is way more interesting than the last trail marker with name, it allows people to create a personalized route and there are a lot of combinations that you can make. Besides that it is way more than 'a simple trail marker along a trail with onthing other than a number'. Because it doesn't directly have the name of the trail though it gets rejeted.

Finally, I came accross this one while reviewing. The concept is the same as the last one: it has no real name of the trail itself and you can create your own route by following Knotenpunkten, it is however made more interesting by having a small map on it. Personally I found this very cool and gave it 5*, but I wonder if it got through since it doesn't have a name on it.

What I'm interested in is how people interpret the rule on trail markers. Do you reject everything that doesn't have the name of the trail on it, or do you also look at how interesting/uniqe the trail marker is and what information it provides. I do the second and I personally think that is what Niantic is aiming at, they just worded it in a way that makes people think that they must have a trail name. I would love to hear your opinions, and since I'm new to this forum I'm curious if there is a chance someone from Niantic will answer and clarify it for us. Thanks in advance

Answers

  • PoMaQue-PGOPoMaQue-PGO Posts: 223 ✭✭✭✭

    Trail Markers need to be part of fixed Trails, which is why there is a name on them.

    As you explained, Knooppunten do not belong to fixed trails, the "name" on them is either:

    • Number for the reference point
    • Name of the organization who placed it (i.e. "Groene Woud")
    • Name of the region you're walking though.

    For me, the name needs to be on it, but in our region there is a flame war about what makes a valid Trail Marker.

    Signs for tourist trails in towns get rejected as "Generic Business", "Temporary/Seasonal", people say they are traffic signs, shouldn't be allowed because a trail has too many of them, or that Trail Markers are only eligible in the middle of nowhere, etc

    There is also another topic about Trail Markers in cities with discussions on this.

  • tehstone-INGtehstone-ING Posts: 817 Ambassador

    I would really like for this to be clarified further. The second to last photo with the 3 different numbers and the hiker logo is pretty clearly a trail marker. The current statement about such markers is somewhat contradictory and certainly has a gap. This marker for example is not a "simple mile marker with nothing other than a number" but it doesn't have an actual name.


    Can you weigh in on this please @NianticCasey-ING ?

  • AgentB0ss-INGAgentB0ss-ING Posts: 553 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I would also like additional clarification on this subject. I have argued in the past that the ruling makes little sense. There are some markers with names that are far less unique and far more simple than some without names.

    I also read the last sentence as only simple trail markers with numbers should be rejected. Whereas I have a trail locally with the city logo, trail logo, mile marker, and an abbreviation. People have said not eligible as the full name is not visible. However a pole with just a name would be more simple and “more eligible”?

  • Faversham71-INGFaversham71-ING Posts: 306 ✭✭✭✭

    I may be dammed as a bad reviewer but personally if I had a marker with a trail logo and initials of the name, but not the full name I'd still consider that met the intention of the guidance.

  • AeriTheBOFH-PGOAeriTheBOFH-PGO Posts: 176 ✭✭✭

    In my opinion, the trail logo in lieu of the trail name should make the trail marker eligible. Some historical trail goes for hundreds of kilometres, it's far cheaper for the government/council/NGO to produce markers with the trail logo and a direction symbol rather than "the lot".

    If a trail marker had no name/logo, I'd evaluate it on its artistic value and/or its location. In OP's example, I wouldn't accept the first example but I'd accept the rest - including the one with no name because it has a map, so I'd treat it as 'sign - map' rather than a trail marker.

    For instance I finally got this through today - third try. It's a simple trail marker but it's got the trail logo on it, and we have a lot of these as existing wayspots on various parts of this trail:


  • AgentB0ss-INGAgentB0ss-ING Posts: 553 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Yea, I would argue all day that meets requirement. Look someone even marked you disagree based on the fact you would accept such a marker. Despite it having way more than a lot of trail markers with just a name.

  • GearGlider-INGGearGlider-ING Posts: 1,303 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I asked a similar thing in an AMA once.

    Q22: Are Trail markers that use the picture/logo of the trail instead of a name a valid trail Marker for a portal if it meets all other criteria for a trail Marker portal submission?

    A22: We would need more context for this. There are trailheads that might have the picture of the trail that would be a good candidate. There are also “you are here” trail signs that might not.

    Trail Markers like that are still iffy and I wish we could get more discussion/clarification on it.

Sign In or Register to comment.