Should I just give up on trail markers?
ChicagoRay312-PGO
Posts: 68 ✭✭✭
This is the 2nd time I’ve upgraded a trail marker on an obvious one and it’s been immediately rejected. Should I just give up trying even those these are approved all of the time? To the person that chose “Pedestrian Access” for the rejection reason, I seriously hope you read all of the warning labels on the shampoo bottle because now I see why they are necessary.
Comments
Personally, I think it's a bit of a stretch to try to class this a trail marker. It's an emergency services marker that just happens to be situated on a trail, and it exists for the sole purpose of letting the emergency services know where you are in an emergency (almost like a physical equivalent of What Three Words). It doesn't really function as a marker to guide you along the trail.
Indeed.
We have similar things here in Japan, and while I don't nominate them, plenty of other people do, and the often do get accepted. At least the ones here in japan usually have the name of the trail on the sign; this example doesn't even have that! In other words, while it is indeed a marker, it is not a trail marker.
I think you should nominate trail markers instead of this emergency location sign.
That is not a trail marker.
As you said "obvious one and immediate rejection". This is not a trail marker.
That’s not what I was implying. These get accepted all of the time. It’s obviously accessible by pedestrians too.
I was ready to defend the trail marker, until I saw that it's not a trail marker. 😂 This isn't a sign whose purpose is to mark a trail and provide guidance along a trail. Its purpose is to identify your location if you have an emergency. It is an emergency marker, not a trail marker. Your post is overly indignant for what this is, good grief. We're overflowing with examples of obvious trail markers and you picked the one that is most definitely least obvious!
Even as an anchor point for a trail, which I usually love and will totally accept if you convince me, this is suspect. Is there nothing else at all that you can tack the trail to?
You can always just keep trying to submit it, if what you claim about others being accepted is true. But that's an uphill battle exactly because of what it is.
TST stands for Trinity Strand Trail. This one, on a nearby trail, has TSK on it for Trinity Skyline Trail.
No. In Texas, these are the trail markers for many of the trails in urban areas. Here is an example of one that was approved.
Here is a trail that goes around White Rock Lake in Dallas, TX. There are many of these approved all around the lake.
If they're accepted in Texas, make sure you don't upgrade them. Outside of Texas, I haven’t seen trail markers like that. (I mean, not that I've been hiking everywhere in the world, but that seems to be the concensus from other posters here.)
‘Other ineligible stops exist on the map therefore this ineligible stop should exist on the map.’
And yet they’re not ineligible because trail markers are eligible. Good try though. Super helpful!
Makes sense. I’ve seen other nominations get rejected in other parts of the world that weren’t understood outside of that region.
And yet, you’re still wrong. [REDACTED]
http://www3.dallascityhall.com/committee_briefings/briefings1209/QOL_HikeBikeTrails_1214091.pdf
This just proves that it's intended to be an emergency services marker. They were requested to be installed by the police, and plotted on the map by the Fire and Rescue department to aid emergency services when someone gets into difficulty and needs assistance in the form of 911.
Just because other similar wayspots exist, it doesn't mean this should be acceptable. As well as criteria changing over time, reviewers do sometimes make mistakes. In your case you're thinking they made a mistake by rejecting this, but the actual mistake was accepting the other ones.
You can press the Disagree button as much as you want, but almost everyone on this thread has the opposite mindset to you, and you've not provided anything that would make us think this is a trail marker and not an emergency services marker.
It literally says “Katy Trail Marker.” And mob mentality doesn’t mean accuracy. History has proven that. It’s not like the intent of these nominations is to deceive anyone. They’re literally on walking trails that promote exercise. How are they any less valid than a wooden sign that says “trail” on them?
Oof. This is speaking as someone who was willing to go along with those being the standard form for trail markers in Texas. The link you posted about the "Katy Trail Marker" background, really supports what everyone else has been saying and undermines your case.
The difference being trail markers are usually interpreted as navigational trail markers, intended to let people know which way the trail goes. That post states these intended for use when talking to emergency services. Do Texas trails use them as navigational trail markers as well? That's looking less and less likely.
Edit: Fixed a typo.
The website I provided calls these “trail markers.” Where in the Niantic criteria does it specify what must be on the trail marker? The numbers, that differ with each one, mark the location on the trail. If Niantic has clarified only certain types of trail markers are eligible, I’m all ears. Otherwise, it’s just opinions. Obviously in this thread, that opinion is one way. The numerous trail markers like this one that have already been approved says that there are many people that feel otherwise.
I wrote a response, but it had pictures, so it's gone into moderation limbo. Just FYI when it randomly appears 2 days later.
I went for a 6 mile walk today on the Katy trail. I smirked as I passed every one of these trail markers because all of them were already Waystops. I guess if the local reviewers feel they are eligible, then all of the naysayers on here really don’t matter. I’ll take the advice not to upgrade these in the future. 😊
Why smirk... a hallmark of niantics system is local standards eligibility. It's essential for numerous things like hotspots and gathering even so far as saying something like a Starbucks in a rural area where people gather would be eligible.
So if your local community thinks these fit, they are welcome to that view.
Although I don't think it's relevant what the PPT calls them, I don't agree with that reading of the slide. It's the "Katy Trail" marker. Not the Katy "Trail marker". You can see that in other slides that all call them "pole markers". Reviewers seeing that PPT will come away with the impression they are part of the emergency services utility system for the area.
Would I accept them anyway? Maybe, but I'm on the extreme lenient side of the spectrum when it comes to accepting things on walking/hiking/biking trails.
Above is my comment from about 24 hours ago. I didn't mean it in response to the last two posts. I'm not trying to start anything back up. That's just why people here are saying they're for emergency services and not "trail markers". I think they'll sail through if you submit without an upgrade, though.
Let’s be serious. Nothing sails through without an upgrade these days. 😂
Ah. I meant as far as once it gets into voting, it should pass based on how Dallas-area reviewers are voting. I forgot about long queue times in cities. This may be a case where it actually would be faster to wait for Niantic to re-enable appeals and see how they vote.
hi there! i am in the dallas area and i have been recently encountering the same problem as well. these trail markers are all over the place, and all over the games as existing wayspots, and i feel as though they are easy 5* acceptances! it kind of baffles me that other people (mainly non-locals) do not think so. they see the big 911 numbers and reject it. these are just the standard trail markers for trails in the dfw metroplex.
i didn't have a problem getting them accepted via upgrades until a few days ago. now a couple of mine have been rejected. it's certainly frustrating, especially when you decide not to upgrade them, then they are stuck in the queue or in voting for up to 2 years or more. :( i'm going to keep resubmitting any of mine that get rejected and try to explain why these are eligible in the supporting info. good luck to you!
It's both an emergency marker AND a trail marker. That's just how the Dallas / Ft. Worth area does trail markers. Every local trail I've been on that has trail markers, uses a format either exactly like this, or very similar. Yes, they help first responders find people more easily, but they also double as landmarks that bikers & pedestrians can use to navigate. That's not to mention how the letter designations refer to the name of the trail (Trinity Skyline Trail in this case), which could arguably make them count as place name signs as well.
All that to say, these still count as trail markers. They're still useful for getting around, they're still tied to specific trails, and having them as waypoints still encourages people to visit places that encourage exercise. Yes, they don't have arrows pointing the way to specific destinations, or the trail name written out fully. But that doesn't make them not trail markers. They're just designed to be multipurpose in a way that's different. Unless Niantic directly says otherwise (and honestly they really shouldn't), rejecting these is going against criteria.
You're going to find it an uphill battle since people have differing views on what a trail marker is and isn't. Before, the trail marker only needed to have a name to be determined eligible. That's how these were able to fall under acceptance since these have the trail name, even if it's only abbreviated. The guidelines have since expanded to include milemarkers, so I don't see how these are any less eligible than than they were under stricter guidelines.
As you posted in the link, we also have videos that explain that these are trail markers. When we started on the project for the trails in the Dallas area, we didn't initially upgrade these submissions to leave the nominations to local reviewers. It took longer, but it was less of a back and forth as opposed to using upgrades and having people reject them because they didn't believe these were trail markers. We only started upgrading once we had a few go through for the area. The local reviewers know these are trail markers, beyond the DFW Metroplex, it's looked down upon since these don't match what a trail marker is in their mind.
Good luck! Feel free to DM me if you need any help.