The main point was a comparison between the Picnic Tables in my Picnic Area being accepted by Niantic and the Picnic Table he used in his View one not both on appeals. Both "Generic" items. But contextually, the tables I photoed with perm grills became a picnic area and the AREA was eligible as a gather point.
The same context applies to benches. If they are on a trail or create a rest stop in a trail. They shouldn't be viewed as coal but rather as good exercise/explore. They serve the same purpose as a trail marker. I've seen POIs on trail that are nothing more than a Yellow Triangle on a sign on a tree or on a post. The bench contextually serves the same purpose. Same thing applies to scenic views. Sometimes a view is explore worthy. But it still needs an anchor point. I'm arguing that a bench in that CONTEXT could serve as an anchor.
So in short, 99% of benches aren't eligible directly, but instead of calling them "Coal" reviewers should look and see if the bench serves as an anchor for an Area/Context that is eligible. Along trails + views being the most obvious. That's the community shift I am arguing for.
I tagged you because I you said "Almost" and I had a picture of the 1% of cases where the bench is directly eligible itself.
Of all the problems within Wayfarer, the number one problem is the extreme amount of ineligible junk submitted. By all accounts, well over half of all nominations (My experience suggest over 2/3rds at the least) are short of eligibility in every way. It’s this junk that creates long wait times, alienates reviewers, enables rejection bots, teaches reviewers to look for a rejection with each nomination, and generally brings down the wayfarer experience for every single user.
Every. Single. User.
These generic benches the OP is talking about are going to get rejected. It doesn’t matter that they’re on a trail - which isn’t a criteria exception for benches that Niantic has offered up - it matters that they’re generic benches and they’re going to get rejected.
They’re coal.
Stop with the imaginary criteria nuances. Not submitting these benches is in everyone’s best interest.
you'd want to direct players to a safe location somewhere along that trail that's easy to find and safe to access. This would apply to trail markers, survey markers, trail signs, etc.
A bench on a trail is a safe location that is easy to find and safe to access.
It is rejecting eligible things that creates long wait times and brings down the Wayfarer experience for everyone. These are not coal. They are at least worth a fair review.
Wrong yourself. That does not include benches. Otherwise they would have said “benches” instead of referring to forms of signage three times. Unless and until Niantic makes a bench-on-a-trail exemption, the fair review benches deserve is immediate rejection, and the greater good is to not submit them at all.
Incorrect rejections would be greatly reduced if reviewers didn’t have to reject the overwhelming majority of garbage in the system. Keep the system clean, keep reviewers engaged. Clog it with generic benches, get rejection bots. Sowing bad submissions only reaps more of the bad rejections you resent so much.
That's very different from my experience, I see very few coal submissions that are just random objects and far more that are just businesses where they didn't put any effort in to make it clear why it's interesting. Your bad experience isn't universal but I'm sure people in areas where it's like that complain more to make it seem like it is.
Do you know what "etc." means? As I said "A bench on a trail is a safe location that is easy to find and safe to access.".
Similar sentence that I made up: "Religious buildings are eligible, this includes churches, chapels, cathedrals, etc." And you are arguing that mosques are not eligible because the buildings listed are all Christian.
Hrrmmm I don't simply think of Survey Markers as a type of "signage". To me it's vastly different than a trail marker and trail sign. Implying that the Etc is meant more extensively than you are arguing.
And most importantly, this forum is Criteria Clarification, meaning having discussion and trying to convince reviewers and even for Niantic to weigh in is the point.
My argument is that Benches/Memorial Benches are not acceptible directly** but make acceptable anchor points for trails, scenic views, and natural features that fit explore/exercise criteria but need man-made anchor points.
I've had people point me to this thread a few times now and ask if I've seen any further official response anywhere, because they're having no luck getting past "natural feature" rejections; but I have yet to see it officially addressed.
The only arguments against are the typical out-of-context use of the "generic" rejection criteria line. However this is only posited after the bold headline "does not meet eligibility criteria", obviously making it further context for something that has questionable/no eligibility to begin with.
It's seems largely logical that benches should be good placemarkers for scenic views and trails, both of which are eligible places to explore and/or exercise that need a placemarker; therefore voiding the application of the "generic" example to benches being used for this purpose.
That seems legitimate enough, without even getting into the other values of benches or their similar purposes to picnic tables; which are now expressly eligible.
Nonetheless, attitudes remain largely fixed and rejections are still most likely, due to lack of Niantic clarification of this specific situation.
It's a global issue that could very easily be resolved and reduce some delay and backlog issues, like this:
Random generic bench by itself- Does not meet eligibility criteria.
Benches as placemarkers along a trail or for scenic views- Acceptable places to explore and/or exercise (and maybe socialise).
And for bonus points, in community areas that are obviously designed to encourage social connection and interaction:
Two or more benches situated very close together- Acceptable places to be social.
How much longer do we have to wait for such a simple official clarification, guys? 😓🙏
You are unlikely to hear any "clarifications" from Niantic, given their comments in the last roadmap about "updating" the criteria. After all, the last criteria overhaul was to move away from "categorical eligibility". Yet things like the Criteria Challenge, previous clarifications on trail markers, and what is called here do exactly that—establish "categorical eligibility". That is why I am expecting a lot of previous clarifications to be rescinded in order to move back to the original intent of the criteria of avoiding "categorical eligibility".
Some things just are categorically eligible, like trail markers, gyms, ... They are by definition great places to exercise, whether you like it or not.
Like on a road? I'm not in the U.S. and we use metric anyway, so I'm really not sure what the context of this is to be able to work out what you mean TBH 😅
Sorry, I didn’t realize how old this post was. Anyway, here was the original question asked a year ago. I was referring to the mile posts.
“I am looking for clarification for the eligibility of benches along a trail. There is a paved trail that I frequent, which is 12 miles long. There is nothing along this trail except for signs when it is intersecting a road, mile posts, and a bench every 1/2mile to 1mile.”
In my area we have many trails with the basic shared pathway signs or no signage with basic bollard entry, either of which should work as a placemarker, but they just don't get through. Bench seats are even rarer and much the same issue, but at this pont I'll take any clarification I can get for what can constitute a "placemarker" 🤷♀️
During the criteria overhaul, Casey stated that Niantic was moving away from categorical eligibility. And looking at the last Road Map, it appears that Niantic will be moving back to that position. After all, it should be up to the nominator to provide a persuasive argument as to why something is eligible and not rely on "because Niantic says so", the latter of which is categorical eligibility. If they can't provide a persuasive argument, then that is entirely on them.
Trail markers and gyms are not eligible "because Niantic says so", they are eligible because they are great places to exercise. There is no reasonable argument to be made that they are are not great places to exercise, so they are categorically eligible because of that. Not "because Niantic says so". Niantic has to "say so", because elitists keep coming up with excuses to reject them anyway.
Comments
2 Slightly different topics in my post.
The main point was a comparison between the Picnic Tables in my Picnic Area being accepted by Niantic and the Picnic Table he used in his View one not both on appeals. Both "Generic" items. But contextually, the tables I photoed with perm grills became a picnic area and the AREA was eligible as a gather point.
The same context applies to benches. If they are on a trail or create a rest stop in a trail. They shouldn't be viewed as coal but rather as good exercise/explore. They serve the same purpose as a trail marker. I've seen POIs on trail that are nothing more than a Yellow Triangle on a sign on a tree or on a post. The bench contextually serves the same purpose. Same thing applies to scenic views. Sometimes a view is explore worthy. But it still needs an anchor point. I'm arguing that a bench in that CONTEXT could serve as an anchor.
So in short, 99% of benches aren't eligible directly, but instead of calling them "Coal" reviewers should look and see if the bench serves as an anchor for an Area/Context that is eligible. Along trails + views being the most obvious. That's the community shift I am arguing for.
I tagged you because I you said "Almost" and I had a picture of the 1% of cases where the bench is directly eligible itself.
Of all the problems within Wayfarer, the number one problem is the extreme amount of ineligible junk submitted. By all accounts, well over half of all nominations (My experience suggest over 2/3rds at the least) are short of eligibility in every way. It’s this junk that creates long wait times, alienates reviewers, enables rejection bots, teaches reviewers to look for a rejection with each nomination, and generally brings down the wayfarer experience for every single user.
Every. Single. User.
These generic benches the OP is talking about are going to get rejected. It doesn’t matter that they’re on a trail - which isn’t a criteria exception for benches that Niantic has offered up - it matters that they’re generic benches and they’re going to get rejected.
They’re coal.
Stop with the imaginary criteria nuances. Not submitting these benches is in everyone’s best interest.
Wrong. From the November 2020 Wayfarer AMA:
you'd want to direct players to a safe location somewhere along that trail that's easy to find and safe to access. This would apply to trail markers, survey markers, trail signs, etc.
A bench on a trail is a safe location that is easy to find and safe to access.
It is rejecting eligible things that creates long wait times and brings down the Wayfarer experience for everyone. These are not coal. They are at least worth a fair review.
Wrong yourself. That does not include benches. Otherwise they would have said “benches” instead of referring to forms of signage three times. Unless and until Niantic makes a bench-on-a-trail exemption, the fair review benches deserve is immediate rejection, and the greater good is to not submit them at all.
Incorrect rejections would be greatly reduced if reviewers didn’t have to reject the overwhelming majority of garbage in the system. Keep the system clean, keep reviewers engaged. Clog it with generic benches, get rejection bots. Sowing bad submissions only reaps more of the bad rejections you resent so much.
You know it’s the weekend when…….
the temperature starts to rise in discussions about trails 🙄
time to chill a little.
That's very different from my experience, I see very few coal submissions that are just random objects and far more that are just businesses where they didn't put any effort in to make it clear why it's interesting. Your bad experience isn't universal but I'm sure people in areas where it's like that complain more to make it seem like it is.
Do you know what "etc." means? As I said "A bench on a trail is a safe location that is easy to find and safe to access.".
Similar sentence that I made up: "Religious buildings are eligible, this includes churches, chapels, cathedrals, etc." And you are arguing that mosques are not eligible because the buildings listed are all Christian.
Hrrmmm I don't simply think of Survey Markers as a type of "signage". To me it's vastly different than a trail marker and trail sign. Implying that the Etc is meant more extensively than you are arguing.
And most importantly, this forum is Criteria Clarification, meaning having discussion and trying to convince reviewers and even for Niantic to weigh in is the point.
My argument is that Benches/Memorial Benches are not acceptible directly** but make acceptable anchor points for trails, scenic views, and natural features that fit explore/exercise criteria but need man-made anchor points.
@NianticGiffard is welcome to step in and settle it.
**99% of time bench isn't directly eligible. Rare decorative benches or famous person memorial benches might be directly eligible as Explore worthy**
A year later and this still hasn't been acknowledged by anybody at Niantic? 😓
@NianticTintino-ING @Nianthib @NianticAaron
I've had people point me to this thread a few times now and ask if I've seen any further official response anywhere, because they're having no luck getting past "natural feature" rejections; but I have yet to see it officially addressed.
The only arguments against are the typical out-of-context use of the "generic" rejection criteria line. However this is only posited after the bold headline "does not meet eligibility criteria", obviously making it further context for something that has questionable/no eligibility to begin with.
It's seems largely logical that benches should be good placemarkers for scenic views and trails, both of which are eligible places to explore and/or exercise that need a placemarker; therefore voiding the application of the "generic" example to benches being used for this purpose.
That seems legitimate enough, without even getting into the other values of benches or their similar purposes to picnic tables; which are now expressly eligible.
Nonetheless, attitudes remain largely fixed and rejections are still most likely, due to lack of Niantic clarification of this specific situation.
It's a global issue that could very easily be resolved and reduce some delay and backlog issues, like this:
Random generic bench by itself- Does not meet eligibility criteria.
Benches as placemarkers along a trail or for scenic views- Acceptable places to explore and/or exercise (and maybe socialise).
And for bonus points, in community areas that are obviously designed to encourage social connection and interaction:
Two or more benches situated very close together- Acceptable places to be social.
How much longer do we have to wait for such a simple official clarification, guys? 😓🙏
You are unlikely to hear any "clarifications" from Niantic, given their comments in the last roadmap about "updating" the criteria. After all, the last criteria overhaul was to move away from "categorical eligibility". Yet things like the Criteria Challenge, previous clarifications on trail markers, and what is called here do exactly that—establish "categorical eligibility". That is why I am expecting a lot of previous clarifications to be rescinded in order to move back to the original intent of the criteria of avoiding "categorical eligibility".
Some things just are categorically eligible, like trail markers, gyms, ... They are by definition great places to exercise, whether you like it or not.
Why not nominate the mile markers?
Like on a road? I'm not in the U.S. and we use metric anyway, so I'm really not sure what the context of this is to be able to work out what you mean TBH 😅
Sorry, I didn’t realize how old this post was. Anyway, here was the original question asked a year ago. I was referring to the mile posts.
“I am looking for clarification for the eligibility of benches along a trail. There is a paved trail that I frequent, which is 12 miles long. There is nothing along this trail except for signs when it is intersecting a road, mile posts, and a bench every 1/2mile to 1mile.”
Oh, right, I see :)
In my area we have many trails with the basic shared pathway signs or no signage with basic bollard entry, either of which should work as a placemarker, but they just don't get through. Bench seats are even rarer and much the same issue, but at this pont I'll take any clarification I can get for what can constitute a "placemarker" 🤷♀️
During the criteria overhaul, Casey stated that Niantic was moving away from categorical eligibility. And looking at the last Road Map, it appears that Niantic will be moving back to that position. After all, it should be up to the nominator to provide a persuasive argument as to why something is eligible and not rely on "because Niantic says so", the latter of which is categorical eligibility. If they can't provide a persuasive argument, then that is entirely on them.
Trail markers and gyms are not eligible "because Niantic says so", they are eligible because they are great places to exercise. There is no reasonable argument to be made that they are are not great places to exercise, so they are categorically eligible because of that. Not "because Niantic says so". Niantic has to "say so", because elitists keep coming up with excuses to reject them anyway.