It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.
Sign In with Ingress Sign In with Pokémon GO
All of the biking signs are like this around my area. This one is an example I see this morning on the way to work which is next to a road which now we know can not be accepted as its along a road. but the ones that are off the road and on cycleways look the same as this blue with attractions listed with distance and the route number 1 which is the north norfolk coast cycleway.
"They look the same as this blue one".
Sounds a bit generic to me.......
Is the bike trail itself part of the road way. Or is it a separate piece of road itself like a sidewalk but for bikes. That is the question you need to answer for yourself.
bike trail part of the road with the cars again is a no. If its separate from the road like a sidewalk or paved pathway that doesn’t share with vehicles then its eligible.
you dont need any clarification on this as its been given already. You just have to use the information given by the niantic mod to make a decision. If you can’t figure out if the bike trail is part of the road or separate from the road you need to rate it accordingly when you review. Or better to not review at all if you can’t make a simple observation and decision 🤷♂️
You can’t say every sign is generic. If they have different wording on each trail marker sign then they aren’t generic. They would be each and every one be considered unique. I can understand if every marker is literally the same wording and style. But if they are different wording your logic fails
the same situation can be applied to park signs. Generally the municipality decides on the design of the signs and the only thing that changes is the letters for the park name. But I bet you don’t consider those generic and if you do your extremely lost
For the one in my picture a few post above its a Cycle path on the sidewalk. The trail itself is call the North norfolk coast cycleway it follows NCN route 1.
If its a cycle path on the side walk and not the road. From the clarification we recieved from niantic earlier in this thread your trail marker would be eligible
@NianticGiffard ....how about this???
These are good examples of great POI maybe get the whole sign as the POI so the arrow and distance to destination can be shown as well. The amount of places to explore along the routes looks great. IMO these pass everything @NianticGiffard said in the post earlier today.
The problem is, Niantic isn't communicating that well enough. The things are 90% (here in Germany) all rejected. Something like this would have to be stored in the criteria with a pictorial example. And unfortunately the plaques are too small if you take a picture of the whole sign.
Sadly reviewer in germany reject them 95% of the time with complete random reasons. Around 1 of 20 gets accepted.
My rejection rate is 100% right now...
These are acceptable imo. The meet everything @NianticGiffard has said.
A key issue is how these clarifications etc communicated to the whole wayfarer community- answer they are not !
There needs to be an easily accessible way that changes/clarifications can be put in front of reviewers AND they forced to interact to demonstrate they have read them.
This could be short updates as you enter wayfarer that you have to go through before a reviewing session.
Read the change, see examples and a short quiz eg 2 photos accept/ reject with feedback if you get it right or wrong.
I wouldn’t stop someone reviewing as the feedback is part of the learning.
100% agree with this as it stands atm all we have is to share this around social media etc which doesn’t get shared around enough anyways.
Think theres 2 easy answers from this at keast
1. If the ncn is along a road, reject
2. If the ncn is along a track its own or a footpath/trail, accept (but maybe one per section? Depends on length and spacing, like I know the canal near me, along a 5km stretch it has 4 ncn signs, 1 at each on and off point, which are roads, and 2 randomly placed, I'd, based on their, accept the 2 randomly spaced ones)
The only grey area it seems to me is, when a ncn marker is at a road and a path. I have a rough example here
The blue circle is where the ncn sign is, but the actual route is the green Kelvin walkway (weirdly, no signs for the walkway on its own), thats the grey area as although the ncn route is the walkway, the sign for it is that intersection for the road and path
Better view of it
This example imo should be accepted. It’s on a path for bikes not directly on the road so it’s safe for both pedestrians and cyclists.
According to the current clarification: What do you think about this?
The path here runs along the road, but later runs on dirt roads or over traffic-calmed stretches.
Translation of the Description (via Google Translate):
The "Salm Radweg" is a tourist cycle route from Dreis via Salmtal, Esch, Rivenich to Klüsserath on 16.5 km. The route includes, for example, the castle in Dreis, churches, mills and farmhouses in the style of the Trier Einhaus.
The supporting Photo an Description
That, to me, is on/alongside a road, so that would be reject, but maybe the photos/supporting photo isn't showing it correctly
That's correct. As I said, the later course of the route runs away from the main roads, which you can see in the link I provided to the official information page with details. But as a reviewer you would have to take the trouble to look at the references that I have carefully added and unfortunately it seems that some wayfarers often fail because of such little things. 😓
I should also mention that unfortunately there are rarely really well-developed cycle path networks in my area. For this reason, such cycle paths also run in parts along the existing roads.
If, when the path diverged away from the road, a sign appeared, then yeah, that would be fine, but as it stands, I would reject the specific sign along the road
@gazzas89-PGO The example of Kelvindale Road is to me absolutely fine. These are distinctive.
Thanks for your feedback. Now I am trying to nominate the same cycle path in other places that do not run together with the roads...
Wasn't the distinctiveness, was more the road/vs path (that how i read Giffords way of putting it) as it intersects both, ive probably picked the most distinctive one possible of the ncn lol, but imagine it was just a singular sign and it became the road vs path argument lol
With what justification? There is a footpath, so why is a denial right here? 🤷🏻♂️
Because the way I read it was they want ones on trails/paths away from roads, like trail markers. This one is along a road (so would most likely have the cyclists go on the road) so based on how I read Giffords explanation, that's not what they would want
Dedicated cycle paths that are on the sidewalk are ok as they are not on the road.
I didnt read it as that way. To me it was they wanted them along trails and the like rather along roads. A pavement is not a trail or cycle path (in fact, in the vast majority of countries, cyclists are encouraged not to go on pavements) so that's why I would say anything that goes alongside a road isn't ok as it then essentially becomes a road sign. To go back to my example earlier, the green Kelvin walk way if the sign is on that, good, kelvindale road if the sign was on there and the route was on that, bad, ots how I read it and i think it's a fair reading as one encourages people out exploring where they wouldnt be, the other is just a standard pavement along a road
The fact that I used the location of the sign for the virtual wayspot (as a visual indicator for the cycle path, which is also used by hikers), which is clearly attached to a pole on the sidewalk, does not change your interpretation? In any case, there is safe accessibility on the sidewalk.
I can only go off supporting photo and where it looks on the map, and it looks to be alongside a road. My reading g of Giffords reply is that they don't want alongside roads, but along roads or paths that people can explore. You said it eventually doesn't go alongside the road, so if there was a sign at that point, then that would be acceptable to the way I've read it
OK, I'm starting to get it. In a Nutshell: Only permitted, if it is OFFSIDE roads that are used for car traffic.