URL as a proof

I've submit hiking trail marker and VTT trail marker (witch are supposed to be eligible, event without a name, according to Niantic's Rules) and get rejection for URL!

Just because i proove theses markers are official marker with URL in additionnal information (that's how we are supposed to do...)

So please clarify that: is it allowed to proove the markers are official ones with URL or not?



  • Aeryle88-PGOAeryle88-PGO Posts: 432 ✭✭✭

    Thanks you for this clarification.

    I will continue to submit trail markers like that and make appeal if this is still rejected.

  • PkmnTrainerJ-INGPkmnTrainerJ-ING Posts: 3,176 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I always put a URL in my supporting information for trailmarkers. I don’t trust that the trail exists if there is no link when reviewing. If it’s a proper trail there will be a site where you can get a map or more details of it before you go.

  • LukeAllStars-INGLukeAllStars-ING Posts: 4,601 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Thats not a one time thing. I have dozens of rejections because of:

    - license plates in the supplemental photo

    - watermarked/low quality photo because of edited supplemental photos

    - URLs and HTMLs in supplemental information

    - faces in supplemental photos

    - ...

  • Aeryle88-PGOAeryle88-PGO Posts: 432 ✭✭✭

    This depends of the country. Here in France, map of the trails don’t exist on the internet. They are sold.

    but here url proove the sign are official sign, witch should be enought to validate theses trail markers as poi according to the ruies. ;)

  • PkmnTrainerJ-INGPkmnTrainerJ-ING Posts: 3,176 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Ah, I get the odd review in France from where I am, but can’t say I’ve ever had a trailmarker from there. Good to know.

  • RandomExploit-INGRandomExploit-ING Posts: 445 ✭✭✭✭

    I wish someone would tell voters in my area that trails without names are acceptable.

    I wondered if Niantic had some AI rejecting submissions as URLs in supporting info, any mention of school in the name or description etc were getting rejected but it really is just hoards of bad reviewers.

    Just creates 5 times the work for everyone re-submitting or appealing

    One appeal a month a laughable when you can get 5 silly Rejections a week easy

  • MargariteDVille-INGMargariteDVille-ING Posts: 1,920 ✭✭✭✭✭

    A trail without a name may not be public. It could cross private property.

    Or maybe it is like a sidewalk - a way to get to a destination, but not a destination in itself. Like a footpath linking a neighborhood to a shopping center. Infrastructure.

  • Aeryle88-PGOAeryle88-PGO Posts: 432 ✭✭✭

    Not in France. It’s the law. It’s totally forbidden to install trail marker on a private path.

    and there is no name on the majority of trail markers because the name is on the map… map witch are sold by IGN (so not on the internet). The only thing that exist on the internet is the link i give in additionnal information: the proof these trail markers are official ones.

    Also Niantic clearly said that there is no need a name to make a trail marker eligible. ;)

  • PkmnTrainerJ-INGPkmnTrainerJ-ING Posts: 3,176 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Niantic tend to think of only US-centric stuff with comments like;

    Also Niantic clearly said that there is no need a name to make a trail marker eligible

    In the UK, there’s thousands of “Public Footpath” markers that don’t have a name, and are not part of the same thing. It’s just an arrow to say you’re allowed to go that way, and you’re not walking on a farmland area etc.

    But I wouldn’t say they’re eligible.

  • Aeryle88-PGOAeryle88-PGO Posts: 432 ✭✭✭

    Ok, good to know for UK. I never saw them, but i think that a sign witch indicate a public footpath is eligible according to the rules.

    It's very different from one country to an other. As i said, in France, the large majority of trail marker don't have a name on them (like those in the submission here... And NianticDancobat think that's eligible...

    Only a few of them have a name, but it's generally not the name of the trail, but the direction.

    Also, we vote for wayspot to appears in Niantic's games. So i think everytime there is a doubt on something, we have to vote to accept the nomination as a wayspot, because it would be better for the game... I think it's better to validate 5% of bad wayspot and remove them later after a report, instead of being too stric and refuse 20 to 30% of good wayspot. Many refused wayspot are lost for ever, because it's not possible to nominate again everything for diverses reasons. And it's not possible to appeal everything too.

  • PkmnTrainerJ-INGPkmnTrainerJ-ING Posts: 3,176 ✭✭✭✭✭

    So i think everytime there is a doubt on something, we have to vote to accept the nomination as a wayspot, because it would be better for the game... I think it's better to validate 5% of bad wayspot and remove them later after a report, instead of being too stric and refuse 20 to 30% of good wayspot. Many refused wayspot are lost for ever, because it's not possible to nominate again everything for diverses reasons.

    I’d have to disagree with you on this one @Aeryle88-PGO

    I don’t know if you play Ingress also, but I think (I play both games) that your comment is reflective of the Pokémon GO vs Ingress mindsets. Obviously not all agents/trainers will agree on this.

    For Pokémon GO players, one PokéStop is exactly the same as another so why not just accept one more. Doesn’t matter if the photo is rubbish, or there’s spelling errors, or it doesn’t quite meet criteria. Let’s add it in, so that trainers can get more items. If needed, it can be amended later. Why bother walking up to that trig point PokéStop when I can spin this one down here by the roadside?

    Then on the flip side, for Ingress players, due to differences in game play it’s important to consider what’s the best tactical portal to capture and use as an anchor for a big field. Let’s grab that trig point up a massive hill for example. That will make a difference to the game and gameplay for other agents too, if they’re fielded over, they’ll look to explore more and taken down the fields or work together with others to do so. Then on reviewing, is the Wayspot high-quality? Does it have everything right on it? If not, it’s probably not going on.

    I’d argue that as Ingress agents have more experience with reporting Wayspots, they know how difficult it is to get them removed even if they’re unsafe. It’s even more difficult (read: almost impossible) to get something removed that no longer meets criteria/didn’t meet criteria at the time (see all the MissionForGood charity shops still in game, that are no longer eligible).

    If something doesn’t get added now, I’m sure someone else will come along and add it later on, if they think it’ll help the community of players out.

    Now to get ready for the Disagrees. 😆

  • Aeryle88-PGOAeryle88-PGO Posts: 432 ✭✭✭

    You have your opinion. I have mine. And i won’t change.

    i’m not saying we have to accept something that does not meet criteria.

    i just say that if there is a little doubt, especially for something in an area with only a few wayspot like trail marker, it is better to validate it and took the risk to maybe validate a bad poi rather than reject it and create a problem of massive falses rejections.

    and i play only pogo now because when i try Ingress, it was totally unplayable here because of the lack of wayspots…

  • Gazzas89-PGOGazzas89-PGO Posts: 1,928 ✭✭✭✭✭

    UK isn't exactly a great one to bring up though, seems like the UK hate any type of trail, I've posted one of mine before that took 4 tries (and in all honesty, I think niantic passed it when they started reviewing again, as it disappeared from my queue). I've recently been trying to get markers through for a thing called healthy habits, the routes are named as "route a" to like k or something I think it was last i looked, but that got rejected twice for not meeting criteria.

  • Gazzas89-PGOGazzas89-PGO Posts: 1,928 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I would disagree that photo quality or text quality doesn't matter for pokestops, I submitted for pokemon go long before I started playing ingress and I and everyone I know who submits with pogo, aims for at keast a good quality description and the best possible photo, if anything, the pre pogo things (so ingress ones) were a lot worse, nighttime pictures, pictures slanted, pictures missing half the thing, taken from a bus with the flash on, I've had to try and fix so many old portal pictures. And having played ingress for a year and a half now, I can say, portal density is just as important, nothing beats having g loads of portals in a row for a spine or loads in a wee area for farming lol, but but the same amount, I'd want that for pogo to. Really the ingress vs pogo mindset only exists with older ingress players who (ill see very many dislikes coming) are very snobby now when it comes to submissions

    Also, ive known several pogo players who would happily go to a trig point if its a gym, but if it's just a stop, yeah not so important then lol

  • JillJilyJabadoo-PGOJillJilyJabadoo-PGO Posts: 1,081 ✭✭✭✭✭

    It would be nice to give submitters the benefit of the doubt, but as @PkmnTrainerJ-ING said, it is far too difficult to get fake Wayspots removed from the map once they're in it. Case in point, there's a nature trail near me where 2/3rds of the Wayspots are fake. They are trail markers that were taken from the start of the trail and submitted at intervals along the trail to fill in a 3x3 grid of fake pokestops. Despite the fact that the trail is covered with photospheres, so Niantic could easily see for themselves the stops are all fake, Niantic refuses to remove them without me going and getting geotagged photos of each one. Naive reviewers never should have approved them in the first place. It takes 30 seconds to look at the photospheres and see they clearly aren't there. It takes far more time to make the case to get fakes removed.

    Quality vs quantity shouldn't be an Ingress vs PoGo thing. I live in a rural area and totally get that "more stops" make Pokemon Go more playable, but my question is why are you playing Pokemon Go then? There are many other games that use the Pokemon brand. If players aren't interested in traveling and exploring, just buy a console or play Pokemon Unite. The thing that makes Pokemon Go different is the incentive to go out, walk around, explore, and see interesting things. "More stops" of things that are everywhere and uninteresting, or that just let you sit at home and spin everything, subvert what makes Pokemon Go unique.

  • Aeryle88-PGOAeryle88-PGO Posts: 432 ✭✭✭

    I agree. But i still think it would better to have 5% bad wayspot accepted rather than reject 30% of valide nomination just because there is a little doubt.

    i think the majority of people who submit things are not here to try to cheat the system. Especially for trail marker in rurual area. (There are plenty of trail marker… so if reviewer follow the rules there is no need of cheating to get many wayspot…)

    i play Pokémon go because i walk a lot and i really like to find poi with pogo.

    problem: the large majority of poi here are not in the game because they are natural features without sign or they are trail markers and get a trail marker validated is very very difficult now despite they are clearly eligible.

    it’s also the reason why i don’t understand why people reject so many trail markers despite they are clearly eligible.

  • MargariteDVille-INGMargariteDVille-ING Posts: 1,920 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @PkmnTrainerJ-ING #MissionsForGood never, ever, had anything to do with portal creation. The #MissionsForGood tag was SOLELY for making missions. In fact, when #MissionsForGood peaked, wayspot nomination was not allowed. Most #MissionsForGood missions just ran agents near charitable places, because they didn't (don't) have a portal. Maybe a few charitable places got portals back in 2014 when Niantic reviewed, but I haven't seen ANY.

  • PkmnTrainerJ-INGPkmnTrainerJ-ING Posts: 3,176 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I’ve seen at least 20 charity shops during my time in Ingress that just have #MissionForGood or similar @MargariteDVille-ING so whether they were placed afterwards via the email in system, or by Niantic themselves I’m not sure but they do exist. I’ll see if I have any keys for some later on.

  • sogNinjaman-INGsogNinjaman-ING Posts: 3,273 ✭✭✭✭✭

    #Missions for Good.

    A Niantic inititive. It might have been rolled out with the idea that new "Missions for good" Ingress missions could be created using newly created Ingress Portals built around new "#Missions for Good" tagged portals, but I have yet to see one.

    The message that the Ingress community (which is all there was then) in my region took away at that time was "nominate new portals using the 'Missions for Good' tag and our in-house Niantic reviewers will approve them quickly". At the time there was no community reviewing, so Portal creation could be slow.......

    So that's what happened, lots of people, including myself, went out and nominated all of our local charity shops with that tag and watched them all get accepted. A lot of them still carry that tag because we were told to put it in the description so it could be flagged to the Niantic review team. It was a one off event, but every now and then I still see a nomiination of what are essentially generic charity shops arrive with a "this is a #Missions for Good acceptable nomination" type comment.

  • PkmnTrainerJ-INGPkmnTrainerJ-ING Posts: 3,176 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I don’t have any keys sadly looking through but I am sure some other agents do.

  • ElwynGreygoose-INGElwynGreygoose-ING Posts: 244 ✭✭✭✭

    Lots of points to address here but the bottom line is that reviewers can learn from rejections and improve their nominations. I now get 100% of trail marker nominations approved but only because it's taken me two years of trial and error to figure out what works and what doesn't. I'm all for something to be done so submitters don't have to go through that, but that's not the way it is.

    People can and do learn, and at the moment for reviewers to stick to the rules, and reject invalid submissions, is unfortunately the primary means of teaching them, because few people come to forums like the "Nomination Improvement" one here.

    But there's never a reason to accept something that's simply ineligible.

  • Aeryle88-PGOAeryle88-PGO Posts: 432 ✭✭✭

    Yes, we can learn from rejection... only if theses rejections are totally legit and correctly explain.

    The problem with the rejection is that they don't follow the rules, so it's impossible to learn something from a rejection.

    Two examples:

    -I try to nominate 4 differents sign about nature. On of them get validated on the first try. The three other were rejected for being temporary or seasonnal (???) or for being a natural feature (!!!). I don't see how i can improve nominations like that... especially when 1 is validated, and 3 rejected for obviously falses reasons. I re-nominate the 3. One get accepted, one rejected and the 3rd is still in voting now. The one get rejeted is this time rejected for sensible location (????? It's in forest... Nothing sensible here...) and for being a natural feature (again i don't see how nature can produce a sign...).

    -Other example with trail marker nomination. About 60% of them get rejected despite the rules... Always for obviously false reasons (natural features, or Living animal... Or URL like this time). What can i learn with that? Nothing.

    I have a trail marker, that were rejected 3 times. I ask for help some months ago here and on a facebook group. The answer was the same: people thought the nomination was bad and try to justify the rejection.

    I was sure that the nomination was eligible... I made appeal on it. Niantic have accepted the submission...

    So the conclusion is clear: the problem is not me and not what i submit... The problem is on reviewers side.

Sign In or Register to comment.