Question Regarding Trail Markers and Foot Bridges
AnonymousBrah-PGO
Posts: 9 ✭✭
Wondering if trail markers all always acceptable or if some point they fall into the not visually unique criteria for rejection. Or do they remain “unique” because technically there is only one of that particular one?
I’m new to reviewing and a lot of nominations in my area (Western NY State) are trail markers due to the vast number of public and State parks. I get tons of submissions for every 1/4 mile for trails as long as 12 km.
Foot bridges are another one that some parks already have 5-10 and the nominations just keep coming.
How do you handle these nominations?
Comments
Generally speaking, these are examples of eligible nominations. Niantic has iterated time and time again of trail markers as being eligible and that physical structures that encourage exercise or exploration are great candidates.
Acceptable? Certainly. I had a trail marker and trail bridge rejected recently though. I even linked to maps as evidence. Can be tough to get them accepted.
Niantic’s definition of “visually” unique doesn’t actually use the “common” meaning you’re thinking of. And yes @NianticTintino @NianticDanbocat this DOES cause issues sometimes in getting things accepted.
Niantic’s definition is just that, if you are there, you can easily distinguish the object from its surroundings.
”Common” usage of the term would be that this one thing is different from all other similar things.
When reviewing, use Niantic’s definition, not the “common” one.
And I have been long advocating that Niantic rewrite their language to make this more clear, and not have to rely on these forums’ myriad comments.
The "markers" you've shown don't look like trail markers, but mile posts, which would not be eligible. Second, footbridges are not always eligible. If they are architecturally interest, historically significant, or is a significant point in the trail, they may be eligible with the appropriate supporting details. However, if it is ordinary looking and simply crosses a creek, brook, or small stream then it is not eligible.
I feel you, OP. I’m sick to **** of reviewing the same trail markers over and over. Seems like about a quarter of my reviews are trail markers that are little more than pickets stuck in the ground with a colored stripe, or a number carved into the side. Half of them are weathered and rotting and a stiff breeze or a determined woodchuck could end their service at any moment. For that matter, in another thread someone stated that laminated pieces of paper tacked to a fence post is a legitimate trail marker, so the standard seems to be very, very low for trail markers.
I think most of these get approved, even though I think many of them don’t meet criteria. So it’s a bit of gamesmanship… if you want agreements and a higher Wayfarer rating, it might be in your interest to vote for them even though they’re horrible and tedious.
I'm not going to say for sure, because I'm only reviewing this photo，
The post in this photo looks like a distance marker (mile marker). Therefore, if the description of this nomination is poor, I will lower my rating.
However, on the other hand, you can see what looks like a QR code on the top.
If this is a trail marker where you can see details of the branching at the trail marker, or a description of the flora and fauna found in this forest, then I would rate it as a trail marker.
It is also true, as @X0bai-PGO says, that most of nominations are not determined to be trail markers.
Therefore, I think it depends on the description and supplementary information about this nomination.
Thank you all for your comments. I probably should have taken more screen shots before posting, so you would have more info to go on.
@X0bai-PGO if it wasn’t for trail markers, literal garbage, colleges and play grounds, I wouldn’t have anything to review. Apparently, to get any of my nominations voted on I need to upgrade. I upgraded one, went to bed and when I woke up it was approved. 😂
@0X00FF00-ING thank you for the clarification. I was under the impression that it meant unique to the area, so with my interpretation 20 green/brown/white etc markers are no longer unique even if the number changed. It’s like a community where the builder used 3 different layouts and just alternated and reversed some. All the houses are still the same cookie cutter to me. Your explanation of more or less “easily identifiable from it’s surroundings” is so much clearer. I agree that rewording would make it less overwhelming, especially for people trying to learn.
@TheFarix-PGO more specifically those are markers on a hiking trail. I’m not much of a hiker myself, but now that you say it, I do know the difference between mile markers and actual trail markers. It just hadn’t occurred to me there was a difference in approval because so many were already approved. I have been basing a lot of my approvals on what seems to be the general consensus, but if it isn’t right because the criteria has changed, etc. I don’t really want to continue to do it incorrectly. On the other hand when 20 of 24 have already been accepted it is kind of hard to say oops sorry and reject the last few. On the footbridge topic…so a generic footbridge would not be eligible, but say one the Girl Scouts or Boy Scouts made and then placed a plaque on would be?
How have you all learned all of the different guidelines? Is there more specific guidance someplace I’ve missed?
One more thing, I have actually had to research something so long that it timed out, I’m assuming I should have just rejected it or given it a low rating. Lesson learned, but say you have a nomination for something and they claim it’s 30 years old, a local fav etc, but give you nothing to back it up, do you try to find out or do you just reject and under what rejection topic? I need a lack of supporting info category and an abuse one for the smart guy/gal that sends stuff in characters of the Asian persuasion that once translated reads literal garbage, but doesn’t fall under an appropriate abuse category.
There is just so much gray and so much up to the specific reviewer. I like nice, neat guidelines. These things are generally acceptable, these things are not. I know, wishful thinking.
Please excuse my tangents and overly long post. I really appreciate any guidance I can get.
There’s a lot of really good feedback here. Your points of confusion are all conpletely reasonable. I wish I could say that Niantic would take this and implement some improvements, but unfortunately that isn’t terribly likely.
For learning guidelines, there is no single, central repository for it. You have to kind of keep your ear to the ground. Niantic deliberately keeps much of the criteria open to local interpretation, so some of it is regional as well.
As far as nominator feedback on rejection reasons, I admire and concur with your desire to send more specific rejection feedback, but the system just doesn’t support that. Any nomination that uses terms like “popular,” “local fave,” or “hotspot” without anything to support that, I refer you to Hitchens’s Razor: "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."
As for abuse, just call it abuse and fill in the supporting text field. I don’t believe that action is taken against abusers on the basis of reviewer feedback, so relieve yourself of the burdensome need to detail it.
Despite the negative comment, those trail markers are (likely) fine. If those signs help people explore nature on a hiking trail, then they both encourage exploration and exercise, which are core at Niantic's eligibility. They could be mile poste to remind people that they are on the correct trail, or they could be at forks in the trail to identify loops or alternative paths. They don't simply need to be the trail head.
These appear to be markers along a trail, they encourage exercise and exploration so 2 out of the 3 eligibility criteria and there is no apparent reason to reject them. Some in this thread seem to have dated ideas of what is eligible while others are spouting the classic "i'm tired of reviewing this type of thing so it's soured my view on them" and neither of those viewpoints should really be considered.
On the footbridge topic…so a generic footbridge would not be eligible, but say one the Girl Scouts or Boy Scouts made and then placed a plaque on would be?
If there is anything interesting about the bridge, it could be considered eligible. These are often on trails and help connect people to their destinations over otherwise unpassable terrain. In my area, they sometimes act as meeting places for "bridge beers" for cyclists or meet up / ride starting locations. It isn't uncommon for children to gather under the footbridges to play in the creek. I've seen engagement photos, family portraits, and senior pictures all take place on some of these trail footbridges.
One more thing, I have actually had to research something so long that it timed out, I’m assuming I should have just rejected it or given it a low rating. Lesson learned, but say you have a nomination for something and they claim it’s 30 years old, a local fav etc, but give you nothing to back it up, do you try to find out or do you just reject and under what rejection topic? I need a lack of supporting info category and an abuse one for the smart guy/gal that sends stuff in characters of the Asian persuasion that once translated reads literal garbage, but doesn’t fall under an appropriate abuse category.
A submitter should use every resource available to convince reviewers of eligibility. This may include websites that rate restaurants, articles that highlight accolades and awards, or even city tourism websites that promote local dining with fluff pieces. These don't always exist.
A while ago, I nominated an ice cream parlor in a small town. No website could be found hailing it, but I did state "a favorite place to go after the local softball game," which would be impossible to prove, but I think most reviewers would have considered "likely."
Just because a nomination uses buzz words doesn't make it ineligible. A restaurant doesn't need Michelin rating, just a place that people go to to be social or one that encourages exploration of local (or exotic) taste.
All permanent markers along a trail can be acceptable, especially as they represent a unique place along the trail and therefore promote exercise and/or exploration. Sometimes trail markers are needed to stay on a trail, sometimes they promote exercise by telling you how far you’ve gone, and sometimes they even give you information about what you might see on a trail (such as the type of trees, or a landmark, or fauna).
Regarding mile markers (on a trail), there is absolutely nothing in the current criteria that says they’re not eligible. Mile markers absolutely promote exercise, and they can promote exploration by telling you where you are in the woods and how much further you can go.
As for the particular trail markers in the screenshot in the OP, those are from the Ithaca College Natural Lands Education Trail. They are not mile markers (though as I just said, being such wouldn’t disqualify them). They are (beautiful) trail markers that also function as nature education signs. Here’s the description for one I just reviewed:
Each one has a very unique QR code that takes you to a page talking about different things along the Education Trail. And they’re amazing.
I include this comment on every trail and mile marker I submit: A forum comment by NinaticGiffard states even small trail markers are encouraged Wayspots as they keep people moving along the trail: https://community.wayfarer.nianticlabs.com/discussion/comment/111955#Comment_111955
Those mile markers do exactly that and I would approve all of them.
I also approve all footbridges along a pedestrian trail under the same guidance.
@cyndiepooh-ING While I’m not disagreeing that certain things may or may not encourage/promote exercise for some people, there are other nominations that just ****, seriously?
Personally, I despise nominations where the nominator tells the reviewer what is and isn’t acceptable per Niantic. That’s not the nominators job. A lot of submissions are subjective. By telling the reviewer that you know you’ve made a good nomination, you assume that the reviewers opinion lines up 100% with yours or your interpretation of what Niantic means. It’s also on the verge of trying to sway a reviewers decision, IMO of course.
Personally, I would prefer a well versed description of the nomination and a few extra minutes explaining why you feel it is a great nomination. I like learning the behind the scene things, the history, why the nomination is personally important to you! Those are the details that would keep me going on a trail or walk through Town.
It’s all about the story. “Plank of wood. Niantic says it’s acceptable.” would hardly encourage me to continue walking anywhere. The pavilion that was filled from top to bottom with junk and approved I might add, (not by me) because Niantic says pavilions are acceptable. While they may be acceptable per Niantic, that particular one can not and has not been used for any kind of social gathering in an extremely long time. IMO clean it out so it can be used and resubmit.
I feel like the above example is why Niantic is so vague when asked to clear things up. They want us to think for ourselves and use our big brains. I’m going to continue to review as I have, even if it hurts my rating. 😁
I understand that this is Niantic’s baby and while I may not agree with some of their line of thinking I understand our job is to be objective. As we’ve proven in this thread alone, just because one person thinks it’s an amazing nomination doesn’t mean everyone else will.
@Gendgi-PGO I think the footbridges you are referring to as being meeting places and such are completely acceptable. The footbridges that I take issue with are 4-6 2x4’s laid out and tacked over a supporting 2x4 and set in the dirt. To me, all these do is keep your feet from maybe getting a little muddy along the way. IMO, they’re not bridges at all. That’s just my personal opinion though. I’ve attached the type of “footbridge” I’m referring to at the bottom. Images speak volumes.
@X0bai-PGO Good point on the buzz words. I have a nomination in mind that sounds exactly like the one you were explaining. No web presence just a great place to take the kids to celebrate a win or a job well done even after a loss. The place has always been hoping for as long as I can remember, but I can’t prove it.
@Willowitaly-PGO Later in the thread I admitted that those particular markers were a very poor example of what I have been seeing. I approved them as well. 😉
If you made it to the bottom of this, I apologize for it’s length and I commend you for your perseverance.
I made it to the bottom.
And now it's gone ⚰️
Not sure where my post went. I spent the last 20 min responding, saved drafts and posted and poof, gone. I've tried everything and I can't get it back. 😥
TL;DR I only mildly disagreed with the content of your post, I think mostly with:
Personally, I despise nominations where the nominator tells the reviewer what is and isn’t acceptable per Niantic. That’s not the nominators job. A lot of submissions are subjective. By telling the reviewer that you know you’ve made a good nomination, you assume that the reviewers opinion lines up 100% with yours or your interpretation of what Niantic means. It’s also on the verge of trying to sway a reviewers decision, IMO of course.
(I had it open, still, on a different window.) I assume you mean nominations saying "this is acceptable per Niantic [period]." Well, sometimes it is necessary and it absolutely is the job of the nominator to prove eligibility, especially with lack of "categorical" eligibility. Sometimes I elaborate in great depth why I think a location meets criteria for exploration, and I'll include "a great place to explore local culture and scenery, core for Niantic eligibility" in the submission text.
I'm a somewhat avid hiker and (sometimes mountain) cyclist. Those planks I am somewhat indifferent of as far as eligibility, but they can be critical for connecting low spots on a trail that collect water or for obstacles while biking. An argument can be made for them, in some cases, but generally speaking I don't see them as fully meeting the intent of eligibility.
One last comment I'll offer from this post:
For now what I would recommend doing is encouraging your local community not to think about whether it's acceptable based on 'what is it' or whether we put it on the list, but on 'what is it's POTENTIAL to support' exploration, exercise, and being social, is this Wayspot going to be useful for me when I go to the woods to explore?
@Gendgi-PGO If you still have it open is there a way it can be sent to me so I can repost it? It did this to me yesterday and then suddenly all 3 of my posts showed up. Makes me look like a crazy lady even more than I already am.🤣
I'll have to consider your point of view on nominators saying that this is acceptable. I hadn't considered that side. I was taking it primarily as arrogance. I understand that the burden of proof is on the nominator, but just because you say it, doesn't make it so. It may be acceptable under one of the first 3 criteria, but maybe there isn't good pedestrian access, etc.
No, I'm sorry.
The Wayforum kinda stinks like that. @NianticGiffard or other mods have hinted at being able to see previous versions of posts and may be able to dig it up, but I'm not sure how.
Funnily enough, I literally type "this is acceptable per niantic guidelines, as it meets x criteria" lol
These are wonderful examples of eligible trail markers, IMHO. Trouble is, when a reviewer goes to vote, there is a high likelihood the reviewer may give it a 1* LOC rating, leading to a rejection for not being able to viewed in the real world. They may also get rejected if the picture is bad or not oriented well. For me, I do my best to research where they might be located and give it a 3* for LOC, even if its in the dense woods and cannot be seen from overhead. This leads to my suggestion that players submitting in remote areas should at least take a great surrounding area picture and also upload a photosphere if possible and upload to Google.
FWIW, the missing post is back up.
I, too, hate being told by a nominatior that their submission is eligible. I had one that read, “Little Free Libraries are five star nominations.” This, quite naturally, was for one in a front yard.
I usually say "this meets niantic guidelines for ...." and then explain what it meets, be social, exercise, exploring, historical etc. Because that's what people have constantly suggested works.