Are National Cycle Network Markers Acceptable? (UK)
I've been nominating various markers that are on otherwise regular street signs around my area as we have a LCN route pass through my local area. I also nominated a separate marker which was on a post near my parents house.
Here is a picture of the nomination near my parents house:
Links to information about the route:
- https://www.sustrans.org.uk/find-a-route-on-the-national-cycle-network/route-66
- National Cycle Route 66 - Wikipedia
Here are some various examples from near where I live:
Links to information about this route:
One of these just went into voting, and I was going to see what the result of that was before I decided to withdraw these other nominations so they don't pollute up the voting pool. But the results of that might take a while. Shall I withdraw these nominations or would they be valid?
It would be a shame if they were not valid, as these are genuine cycle trail markers which help encourage exercise just as any other trail marker would. Even if they were acceptable, I get the vibe that it would be difficult to convince reviewers that these should be a valid wayspot.
Comments
Number 2 on the ordinary road sign - no
1 and 3 should be ok
4 should be ok but suspect it might not.
if you look back in this forum area you will find a long post about it.
I did post a comment with links to both the comment that has various examples of markers and Giffard's reply giving his verdict on them, but despite the fact they're literally links to elsewhere on the forum, the comment has been sent for mod review 🤦♂️ so yeah, please be patient and it'll appear eventually haha
On the scale of markers, rating from great to poor... at some point, a marker falls below an acceptable threshold. It's not written in stone; it's more intuitive. That what Niantic wants to cultivate, even tho it drives most of us batty.
Based on just the pictures, here's my intuition:
1 - yes - it's only about the trail
2&3 - no - those are driving signs that happen to have some trail info
4 - probably not - while the sign IS only about the trail, the pole is not. But maybe.
None of these are eligible.
Giffard commented on NCN markers. The post he makes reference to in that post is here:
From that same thread:
As you are aware, we consider any marker on a hiking trail as acceptable since our goal is to have folks explore. Even a small marker on a trail will encourage players to cover more of the trail if there are more Wayspots on the way.
It is not about how a marker looks, but what it represents. If a trail marker is embedded in another sign, it is still a trail marker. All of these should be good, as long as they are on the trail.
They're not hiking trails. These are basically road signs for cyclists.
1 i would say yes, 4 i would need to see what the area is like, if its just a standard path through a cul-de-sac or something like that probably a no 2 and 3 are definite no. The problem is, the Facebook group (and I think also the telegram group) in the UK don't want them as they are "too generic" and Gifford "didn't know what he was talking g about". They choose to ignore that Gifford said pretty much "we want these because they encourage exercise and exploration, our 2 most important goals"
Care to explain why 1 isn't, that's the easiest yes of those 4 (4 is a maybe). Because that oen is exactly the kind of thing Gifford said was good, as they encourage exercise and exploration. And before you use the old "generic/mass produced" line, remember virtually every muga in the UK is made to the same standard by the same company (can't remember the companies name but they will all be part of the "arena" banner), and the vast majority of trail markers will be mass produced
And hiking markers are basically road signs for hikers, trail markers are basically road signs for walkers along a trail, see I can say things like that too
To combat the "its just a road sign for cyclists" argument, here's here's the actual website for the network says
The National Cycle Network is a UK-wide network of signed paths and routes for walking, cycling, wheeling and exploring outdoors.
They don't think it's basically just a road for cyclists, they think it's for exploring snd exercising (taking walking and cycling together) 2 things that niantic want, so could the people arguing it's just a road for bikes please explain how they know more about it than the people who run it?
@Gazzas89-PGO, could you elaborate why you think 2 and 3 are "definite no"? I don't really see a difference between 3 from this post, and the last "acceptable" one from @RobWaudby-ING's post. Is it because they are part of a sign that is not entirely dedicated to the trail, but serves other purposes as well? That shouldn't make a difference. They still fulfill the same purpose of guiding people along the trail and encouraging people to cover more of the trail.
Thats exactly why. To me, it's the trail marker we want. Those to me are directing to the trail, rather than being on the trail themselves, so thats why I would say no to 2 Also, from what Gifford said, they want it on trails, not on roads, so seeing as both are on road signs (one looks almost like a motorway sign, the other shows a bus route sign) I would conclude they are actually on a road rather than a trail (so really, it's more about safety for them as well as not encouraging exploration)
These are trails. Sometimes they are through urban areas but then go into semi rural or rural.
These are all on spectrum. It’s a nonsense that essentially the same marker on the same sort of pole along a track by a river is in but on a road 400m away is rejected.
The important thing for both is what the sign says. It tells the person walking the route which way to go so that they can follow the trail and explore along its length.
But I guess we are going to go round these points of view again 🙄
Chances are the people who argue against all ncn markers are the school of "I'm looking for reasons to reject" rather than listening to what niantic actually want
I think the question to ask ones self when looking signs like this is "Does this sign help direct people along the trail?"
If the answer is yes, then it is eligible.
As a US person, #1 looks "perfect" to me. It marks the trail as "66" and provides other info.
#2 looks a lot like a generic street sign, but I see the little trail bit near the top. I'm not super familiar with UK street signs, but is that the kind of sign that helps direct people along a trail? 90% of the sign seems meant for car traffic, but that little tiny bit with the bike and trail number means it could be eligible.
#3 looks good to me too, I have similar signs that are local to me that I actually use all the time.
#4 also looks good, it's an identifier for the trail.
So I would say that all four are eligible. But #2 might be a harder sell to reviewers as they are going to see the "generic street sign" parts first, and potentially disregard the little trail bit. I would suggest taking a further away picture, and the providing a link in the supp info to a map of the trail network (like you've done in this post).
I think you are making some assumptions there.
I'm not saying these are definitely great candidates, but if both are on the trail they represent, and they have safe pedestrian access, and they are nominated with a good title and description, I don't see why they should be rejected.
I'm basing off that picture alone so that's what I need to go with. Based on the signs near me ots very similar to street signs rather than trail marker signs
For what it's worth, all of the signs I took photos of originally are on paths/sidewalks.
All the signs are on the trail itself rather than pointing towards the trail.
For me eligibility is not the same a acceptability. Just because something meets one of the three main eligibility criteria does not mean that it is automatically acceptable it just means that is should not be rejected out right and you should consider how it stacks up against the subsequent acceptance/rejection criteria. For me all four nominations are eligible but personally I would reject three of them and possibly accept one of them (depending on the supplemental information provided). However I do not see a single 5* nomination here.
Whats wrong with 1 and 4 (and 3) they meet 2 criteria (exercise and exploration) while dont meet any rejection criteria
Literally the first sentence in the rejection criteria states; "The object is mass-produced, generic, or not visually unique or interesting." I personally can't see how anyone would consider 2-4 to be non-generic, unique or in any way visually interesting. I would accept 1 because it is quite different from other NCN signs that I have seen and I like the reference to the maintenance by a community volunteer group. It's still is not a 5* nomination though in my opinion. If I had nominated it, I wouldn't be surprised if it was rejected. As I have said all of them are eligible but it we are accepting nominations 2-4 we are really setting a low bar.
You could argue lots of stuff is mass produced thats fine, see one of my comments from earlier, mugas in the UK are for the most part made by 1 company to the same specifications with the only differences being the colour of the court and the positioning of the seat at the side, so by definition, they are mass produced, why should we ignore it for them?
And then markers along a trail, by the fact they would be the same marker at different points, they would also be mass produced (as more than 1 is made) and would also not be visually unique or appealing, so should they all be rejected (I hope your answer is no)
These markers encourage exercise and exploration by the people who operate themselves own words on their website, thats 2 of the big 3 criteria niantic wants, as well as gifford sayying they are OK, yet you choose to take that one line of the rejection criteria to overule this, but not other things?
Personally i wouldn't accept 2 or 3 as they to me are road signs, but 4 is on the trail, it's a trail marker, it's maybe not a slam dunk but it's at least a 4 overall
So we basically agree on 1-3 and I do see your point with regard to 4. However I just can't have 4 as an acceptable POI. It will be interesting to see what the outcome is.
Do we really need to drag this up again? @NianticGiffard said certain ones were acceptable, and other reviewers disagreed, noting they met rejection criteria.
However, we have had @NianticDanbocat say that a Dog Waste Bin “could be” acceptable, so it’s no surprise that sometimes reviewers who spend more time reviewing than Niantic decide for themselves what’s acceptable/eligible.
I guess, you could try and Appeal one and see what happens.
They are so common and are standard road signs that most UK reviewers find them uninteresting, and that is a reject criteria.
I've seen this twice or three times now and rejected it, these are generic, mass produced, often running the length of the country, not visually unique etc, glad to see I got the agreements.
I've seen someone else who I know frequents this forum who's subbed some of these and I've reviewed his too, sadly 1 of them got through but I think the rest were rejected cause I've seen them resubbed in my review queue too.
These are just the same as any road sign which has a number on them like A1 or M1.
1 just shows that the path/pavement is used by pedestrians/cyclists and horses.
2 and 3 are just road signs showing an alternative route for cyclists which is different to other vehicles
4 is a standard road sign which the department of transport define as "Route recommended for pedal cycles on the main carriageway"
I do agree 2 and 3 are rejections as they don't look like they are on the trail themselves (if they could be shown that they are then that's different, im basing it on similar signs to me that look almost identical bar the names of the places lol) but you said you would need to be convinced with 1, while I would say 1 is the easy pass. 4 I would say is a pass as a 4 star overall, maybe just 3 star the visual uniqueness, but I would t reject it for that, as its still seems to be on the trail therefore its encouraging exercise and exploration
No they aren't, where have you lot got this idea from????? The website literally says the national cycle network is for cycling and walking (exercise) to get people out exploring, pretty sure motorways arent for exercising and exploring for cars are they?
2 and 3 are road signs yes, but 1 is 100% a trail marker, so no different from any hiking ro walking trail, with 4 being a weaker but still obvious trail marker