Trail Markers - Quality of trail markers
Belahzur-ING
Posts: 599 ✭✭✭✭✭
Hi everyone. I'd like to ask for an answer from Niantic on trail markers, here in the UK, some councils (or whoever) that produce trail markers for named trails as Niantic states in their criteria guidelines, some are produces as small plastic discs that are often nailed onto a wooden post, other times are stickers that are just stuck to a metal pole, to save on design/production cost.
I quote from the guidelines:
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.
So here is a valid named trail - https://ldwa.org.uk/ldp/members/show_path.php?path_name=Welcome+Way
However, among the UK community, there seems to be a split consensus over whether a sticker marker vs a plastic disc nailed to a fence is "permanent" or not as stickers are easier for people to damage/vandalize etc, so I'd like to ask for this to be cleared up, how does Niantic measure what is temporary and what is permanent? how does one decide which overrules in this case? does a sticker invalidate a "named trail" because it's easier to be removed without being nailed down? Examples below
The other concern is that stickers are easier for people to re-produce as copies/fakes, however with the above website, it shows where the route can be found and what direct it goes in, so any markers outside this route could easily be detected as reproductions/fakes I would assume?
Thank you :)
Answers
They meet the guidelines, and have an estimated lifespan of 5-7 years, which isn't really what I would consider temporary, but they rarely get accepted.
Similar question to my post.
I agree clarification needed. For sure they are not temporary, and if people are going to vandalise they would do it for either. Rejection can't be based on ability to falsify the marker!
@NianticCasey-ING
Maybe I could just put some screws through the stickers!
Unfortunately your correct, as it stands right now even the best, most detailed trail marker submissions struggle and I'd like to try and bring everyone in line so were all on the same page, and we need Niantic clarification on this.
We don't really need clarification. They're trail markers on a permanent trail. Any actual marker is temporary in itself because everything needs replacing eventually. The permanency is of the trail.
The problem is how many reviewers don't like them at all and use it as a reason to reject. There's not much more you can expect Niantic to do when they clearly state that they're valid.
From what I have seen, this is a very UK-centric thing, so I'm going to try add some outsider perspective on it.
In my opinion, they are very poor examples of trail markers (not the worst, but not good either). Yes, they state a "trail" and point in a direction, so therefore they are to be considered to be trail markers. But let's dissect the markers a bit more.
At first I thought that the website www.welcomeway.org.uk didn't even exist, it wouldn't load after several attempts. Then it finally did load! So I was going to assume that it was a fake website, but the actual site gives some decent information and pictures on the trail. So that's fine
It could be perceived that because they all share the same design, this could indicate that they are mass-produced objects, whether it's a sticker or placard.
I personally wouldn't treat stickers as permanent either, accepting stickers is just ripe for abuse by people creating their own stickers - not saying that is the case, just that it could be a potential outcome by setting the precedent of accepting stickers in the first place.
I know the clarification for a trail marker has changed a lot over time and from the AMA's, it basically allows any minor marker to be treated as a trail marker. Despite that, I would still look for some kind of quality in the value of the trail marker. To me, the best trail markers are the ones that (1) state the name of the trail, (2) have directions, (3) state the name of other trails or points of interests, and (4) provide a distance to those trails or points of interest. Here are two examples: Arthurs Seat State Park and Dandenong Creek Regional Trail. Not only do they include all the aforementioned factors, but they are substantial in size and erected and maintained by local councils and are recognised as official trails.
Those stickers/placards are maintained by what looks like charity organisations, so I wonder if those trails are actual trails as designated by the Government, or are they just random trails people have made up as a means to promote tourism/exercise in the region? If it's the latter, then anybody could make up a trail and print some stickers and it would be equally as valid. If it's an official trail recognised by the Government, then that gives it much more significance and validity.
I also read on these forums not long ago that UK people are marking paths as trails in order to keep some right of way laws or something? I can't remember where I read it, or the details, but from my limited understanding of the matter, it seems like people are desperate to designate paths as trails in order to retain some kind of right of way or ownership or something. If that's the case, I wouldn't consider them valid trails unless recognised by the council/Government on official maps.
Anyway, this is just my perspective as an outsider. At first glance they meet criteria and should be accepted. Going into the detail of them, it gets murkier. I would love to see the perspective of UK locals that reject them and see their reasoning for it so that I could understand both sides of the argument.
"I know the clarification for a trail marker has changed a lot over time and from the AMA's, it basically allows any minor marker to be treated as a trail marker. Despite that, I would still look for some kind of quality in the value of the trail marker. To me, the best trail markers are the ones that (1) state the name of the trail, (2) have directions, (3) state the name of other trails or points of interests, and (4) provide a distance to those trails or points of interest."
That's great in theory - but most countries don't have that level of detail on even the most significant national trails - take The Pennine Way, one of the longest established UK National Long Distance paths - all you'll get it The Trail Name, a Symbol and an Arrow - the assumption is most walkers will carry a map giving that extra detail.
"Those stickers/placards are maintained by what looks like charity organisations, so I wonder if those trails are actual trails as designated by the Government, or are they just random trails people have made up as a means to promote tourism/exercise in the region? If it's the latter, then anybody could make up a trail and print some stickers and it would be equally as valid. If it's an official trail recognised by the Government, then that gives it much more significance and validity."
Apart from a few long distance trails the UK government doesn't get involved in trails - public rights of way are the responsibility of the county councils. There are town councils who have their own trails, nature reserves and the odd health charity but these are few and far between - having said that there is nothing in the guidance to say that trails have to be Government recognised rather than Town Council recognised - to reject trails produced by Town Councils or in the case of Nature Reserves the Wildlife body who owns the land seems to a completely arbitrary rejection not based on the guidance given.
"I also read on these forums not long ago that UK people are marking paths as trails in order to keep some right of way laws or something? I can't remember where I read it, or the details, but from my limited understanding of the matter, it seems like people are desperate to designate paths as trails in order to retain some kind of right of way or ownership or something."
Rights of way law in the UK are complicated (Scotland has different laws to England & Wales, as does the City of London and 12 inner boroughs), but marking a path as trail doesn't have any impact on whether it's a Public Right of Way or not. In general a public right of way is created when a path has been used for 20 continuous years without the landowner objecting, or when a landowner dedicates a path as a public right of way.
Named trails make up a tiny percentage of the public rights of way network.
Thanks for providing that extra insight. It all sounds very UK-centric, it's a shame that there aren't more substantial trail markers, as the UK would have a heap of history for trails and such and going for walks along trails might allow one to experience some of that history.
From the original post it sounds quite divisive, I hope for the UK folk that somebody that fervently rejects them can give their reasoning why so that the discussion can further open up.
Not sure why people disagreed with my last post since I provided my opinion to add to the discussion and even agreed to accept them. Silly Wayfarers lol
Hi all.
Thank you for the comments, as you can see there is definitely a fracture between people over temp vs not temp and it's causing a lot of mass accept/rejection on both sides and creating chaos and confusion among people for the rejection reasons.
The sticker markers I've subbed have been rejected for not meeting criteria & temporary, I'm not sure why they don't meet criteria, I guess people are maybe making up their own rules as they go along, maybe Niantic is just wrong?
Someone above said we don't need clarification as they clearly do meet criteria, I'd have to say I agree, we don't -NEED- clarification here, but people aren't voting on whether this meets the criteria, people are voting based on how long something could -theoretically- be there because of difference in production of these markers, in which case there an even bigger fracture among reviewer votes.
Let's not forget that this is the example given by Niantic of an eligible trail marker. Small plastic discs directing people on a little trail. The stream trail doesn't sound like an internationally acclaimed long distance trail.
Anything deeper and more significant is just reviewer's own personal preference and shouldn't be used to judge.
As I read the guidance, it needs to be an off the beaten path trail.
i don’t think every trail is eligible or that some parts of a trail I would accept but not a part where the trail meets roads.
i don’t like stickers on trail markers either, have seen a previous example where someone got hold of stickers for a legit trail and was sticking them to lampposts that weren’t actually on the trail
If there is no trail name then 1*
If there is a trail name then 2* to 5*. If you 1* something with a trail name you aren't following guidelines and are just making up your own rules.
All trail markers I have seen are a combination of mass produced objects - a metal or wooden post/sign and a plastic disc or sticker. If I came across a hand carved sign I'd 5* it but yet to happen. The Niantic example would AT BEST get 4* from me - but it doesn't sound that "off the beaten track" (Eucalyptus and Stream Trail Loop is a 1.9 mile moderately trafficked loop trail located near Piedmont, California) and it would also inevitably get 3* for location.
I'd 2* / 3* the metal post and likely 3* the wooden gatepost.
There's a named 60 mile cycle trail avoiding main roads that goes past my house. There is a sign with the trail name (sticker) on a metal sign on a metal post about 40/50 metres away. It's eligible but it'll never get accepted due to people ignoring the guideline clarifications in "Potentially Confusing Nominations" :-(
Rating Scale
You will be asked various questions about a nomination and answer by rating on a scale of one to five stars. In general, use the following guidelines when deciding how to vote:
When you answer "Should this be a Wayspot?" with a 1 star rating, you will not be required to answer the other questions and can move to the next nomination.
The guideline is clear, so why would you give it anything less than 5 stars? 2 stars is reject.
Am I reading your post correctly?
You seem to be saying that you would only begrudgingly rate the Niantic example as a 3*?
What does it matter what post the marker is on? So your criteria are: it needs to be a named trail, it needs to be a trail you consider worth walking, if the local council didn't spend enough money on a post but placed it on an existing post you might not accept?
A perfect example of someone adding their own criteria. Unless I've totally misunderstood what you've said.
In your example you are judging the nomination based on the craftsmanship of the sign rather than the merit of the actual subject. "mass produced" is not the opposite of "hand carved by an artist". In the context used by Niantic, mass produced means objects that you could pick up at your local Hobby Lobby, not a plain looking metal sign made for a city council by the same shop that makes their street signs.
I wish you could share that feedback with local Ingress Reviewers, since they reject all Trail Markers (metal signs) saying they are mass produced.