Rundown generic benches accepted now?
yanghao1-ING
Posts: 56 ✭✭
Look at photo below. Is a Rundown generic bench accepted now? The supporting info seems to say so. I looked at the wayfarer criteria and didn't see that in the list. I want to give it a 1 star reject.
Comments
Wow, so many buzz words in one bad nomination
Actually, yes. I can’t remember the exact wording but something along the lines of it still promotes exploration of a remote area
Wish they used the supporting photo for the main photo and sold it as a view point. The bench is inviting to sit and enjoy the view. Gives the nature photo an anchor.
Not sure I would give it stars for that or not.
The issue is that a scenic viewpoint is interesting, encourages exercise and would be a good nomination. The problem is that it is also a natural feature. So per the acceptance criteria "Must be a permanent physical, tangible, and identifiable place or object, or object that placemarks an area". This means we need an object to tie the viewpoint to and so people try to tie it to the bench placed for viewing. It can work but it is up to the reviewers to agree that this is a scenic viewpoint and not just a bench on a trail, and this nomination did not do a good job convincing people.
This, if they had submitted the view point and said in the supporting they were using the bunch as the anchor, I'd accept it
I would tend to agree. Especially if I knew the trail or how long the hike was.
nope its just a generic bench nothing too special
I'm in the a bench with view counts but the view has to be special .... So it depends .... Lolol
I gave stars for one near me the other night ....
Trail, elevation, plus river ....
Personally, I think Benches on Trails should be viewed the same way trail markers are.
They are an anchor for trail & continue exploration down the trail.
I fail to see how the bench is any worse a spot than "Trail Marker 1" "Trail Marker 2" "Trail Marker 3" or ones that are mile based that are accepted. In fact, I challenge you to type trail marker in the Wayfarer Search bar. You get this link
You will find plenty of trail markers that people argue as acceptible that look far worse and are far less interesting than that bench.
^ agree entirely. This bench, and any similar bench - including a memorial bench dedicated to an unremarkable individual - is a better representative of a trail or a park than a small, indistinguishable mileage post, and is more worthy of inclusion as a POI than 90% of trail markers that are already in the game.
I disagreed with the above solely because benches do not provide any navigational information. They do not help me explore, they do help me rest in comfort but they're just a utility item at that point. Trail markers contain useful information, even mile marks are of use when hiking an out-and-back trail, and they're often one's only guide along a complex rural route. A bench in the woods serves the same purpose as a bench anywhere in a city. I have a trail near me that has no trail markers, only two plain benches, and I would not feel comfortable nominating either of em.
Have to disagree with this. Some trail markers provide additional navigation information (such as a map), but most do not, they just say "name of trail" (if that!), and all they do is tell you "yes, you are still on the trail, you are not lost, carry on". A bench on the trail likewise tells you "yes, you are still on the trail, you are not lost; carry on (or take a rest! Your choice)".
To be sure, I think neither should eligible.
Back in the day, trail markers where specifically NOT eligible: trail information boards were, if they were trailheads (which meant we got into heated arguments over what constituted a trail head. Did a junction constitute the head of a new trail or not? I said yes, but I also had somebody disagree with me quite vehemently on this point...)
Anyway, to me a trail bench has to be *at least* as worthy as a trail marker in the "exploration" category, given you can actually aim for a bench as an objective, but who thinks to themselves as they are walking "OK, our next stop will be at marker 37"?
Back in the day, trail markers where specifically NOT eligible
I got my start only maybe 6 months before Wayfarer (started with OPR through Ingress), so my "back in the day" may not be as comprehensive as yours, but I don't recall this. The Candidate Action Guide even started the following:
Candidate: Trail Marker
Policy: Accept
Suggested Vote: ★★★★★
ACCEPT. Falls under the criteria of adventurous tourist attractions and encourages walk and exercise.
I'm aware of the Ingress AMA responses provided by RedSoloCup but they mostly read like personal opinion and aren't always consistent.
I do recall an early iteration of Wayfarer guides stating that trail signs must have the trail name, but anyways all of these went away with the 3.1 criteria refresh.
I personally believe this bench could meet criteria for exploration, however I don't think the nomination does a good job promoting it. The supporting text is pretty disingenuous.
Niantic made the point that trail markers encourage exploration and exercise because a person on the trail with their pokemon app, may travel further down the trail for both explore and exercise to the next pokestop that they see on their phone. So in that sense, a bench fulfills Niantic's purpose equally well as a Trail Marker.
Again, check out the search of trail markers. Look at the pictures on trumbnails and many of pictures are not only worse, but give no useful information.
I really don't mean this offensively: You're logic is simply different than Niantics.
Niantic made the point that trail markers encourage exploration and exercise because a person on the trail with their pokemon app, may travel further down the trail for both explore and exercise to the next pokestop that they see on their phone. So in that sense, a bench fulfills Niantic's purpose equally well as a Trail Marker.
Niantic never said because trail marker are acceptible because they gives useful information, that is your additional personal criteria. And shouldn''t be part of reviewing.
((PS: Substitute Pokemon with any of games))
I take no offense, and enjoy different opinions especially when so politely presented! I'm basing my point of view on the fact that a hiking route may be something like "follow the green trail to the intersection with the red trail, then follow the red trail north" where those trail markers provide real information. If I'm told to turn left at a bench, then walk till I get to another bench, I'll eventually turn myself in knots and the vultures will start circling. The trail markers tell me what trail I'm on, where a bench is pretty generic - I'm on a trail of some sort. Benches are not unique to a trail setting. I came to Niantic games and Wayfaring in general from a Geocaching and Birding background, and those trail markers have been vital in my exploration efforts for many years. That's why I'd rate them as acceptable. I don't think their value as exploration guides can be confined to a game or games. I do think the OP's bench shouldn't be acceptable as a bench - but I'd rate it highly if nominated as a Scenic Viewpoint. I'd want to get to that spot to see what I could see.
I have another comment pending edit review, so I apologize for the redundancy if both are posted.
If I'm looking at Portals nearby (I'm substituting Ingress as the representative game) and am in a trail area, I may know I want to go to the intersection of the Red and White trail. I can then use the in-game map to guide me to that point, if a portal exists at the intersection marker and there's any decent cell service. A bench does not have the same allure. If the candidate was a specific scenic viewpoint, then sure...I want to get there! A bench does not tempt me to explore. Named trails, specific mile markers, pre-planned routes - they do. If my cardiologist tells me to walk five miles a day, I'd like to know where the 2.5 mile marker is so I can set that as a goal for my turnaround point! I don't think I'd walk five miles to get to a bench - unless it was a strategic portal already in game, and in that case I wouldn't be exploring but would be head-down dashing to a spot of value only in that particular game. I don't think my definition differs from Niantic's in spirit, and I do always try to adhere to guidelines. I wouldn't take a visitor miles out on a trail to see a bench, but I would take a friend out to see a favorite named and marked trail.
On the flip side, a bench on a trail might encourage people to walk a little further than they might have done as they can see they have a rest point. Not really interested either way, but a bench can encourage slightly more exercise by offering gt he option to prolong it
Ahh, but then wouldn't any bench in any setting be eligible, if that was the goal?
I like Casey's text:
We know this will introduce more possibilities within categories like ‘generic businesses’, potentially benefiting smaller communities that may only have a generic, but still locally important, business. Or for seemingly common objects like benches or phone booths, which if out of context/rare within it’s landscape, are actually pretty cool objects to explore.
Is just another bench in that downtown plaza really that interesting or uncommon? Probably not. But I've seen (and been impressed with) one that was "the longest bench" (not just a concrete platform) or the social benches shared in here before. And I think most of those mountain hike or scenic view benches should be eligible.
Niantic keeps saying these things should be eligible, why can't their community agree?
Scenic View Benches are eligible, but as anchors for that scenic view. If a bench is on a mountain summit, or a notable place, sure. But on a trail with many identical benches, all of plain manufacture, what criteria do they meet? Are they great for exercise? Not particularly, in my case - I'm more likely to walk a named trail to get to a stand of Hemlocks, but I wouldn't claim a bunch of trees as an eligible objects. Benches don't tempt me to explore, unless they're in a specific named and interesting setting. IF they meet criteria by encouraging exploration or exercise, sure! But if a plain bench is a plain bench on a trail with few viewpoints and many identical benches, I cannot see how that meets criteria. If the submitter points out the value of a particular bench, and does it well - it will get my Yes vote, but I don't think I'll ever be one to black-and-white say "IF bench ON trail THEN accept" in all cases. Not all trails are in remote woods, anyway! Of course (here comes my snark moment) I'm not one to speak for Niantic, because apparently I'm a horrible reviewer not even worthy of consideration as an Ambassador so my words speak for me alone.
Of course, I certainly wouldn't want every bench 50 feet apart on a trail, but I think we can move past the immediate "bench = generic = ineligible" many people go straight to. I certainly am not pushing that they are categorically eligible, either.
Of course (here comes my snark moment) I'm not one to speak for Niantic, because apparently I'm a horrible reviewer not even worthy of consideration as an Ambassador so my words speak for me alone.
I don't, either 💁♂️ if you read the announcements, you know Ambassadors don't speak for Niantic. I found a post by a recent mod who I sometimes disagreed with, and I'm sure you could find text disagreeing, too.
Agreed for sure on that first point! And I gotta have my snark moments on the second point, just a rare opportunity to vent. 😁
No problem, I may have taken it too sensitively, though. For what it's worth, I enjoy reading your posts and thoughts even when we disagree (and of course more when we agree)! And I don't think we really disagree on this matter, I'm just pushing more to "over correct," so to speak.
Definitely not intended as a slam against you in any way, shape, or form - I was happy to see your name on that list! Congratulations, by the way - you were a well-deserved choice. And yep, I think we were both making the same point with different verbiage. I like a good discussion, especially when it lends a new perspective!
Not especially, if you're putting it on a trial thats already for exercise and exploration, a bench could then be eligible as it could extend the exercise and exploration, assuming there aren't hundreds on it, if its one in the middle of nowhere it could be eligible