Live in Wayfarer 3.1 is a new set of acceptance criteria! Please browse the information in this category with caution as it is in reference to the previous review guidelines. To learn more about the new criteria, see here:




  • Senmana-INGSenmana-ING Posts: 129 ✭✭✭✭

    Why? My being unsure it meets criteria has nothing to do with whether I can verify location.

  • sq3rjick-INGsq3rjick-ING Posts: 15 ✭✭

    Hence why I originally said, in my first post in the thread, that I thought the main confusion was around the definition of the word "trail". The 2nd and 3rd picture I posted are obviously along a trail, which, to me, has literally the same meaning as "path" and "footpath". You can see the trail in both of those pictures in the foreground and background, in front of and leading up to the bridge, and continuing behind and away from the bridge.

    A trail doesn't need a map to be a trail. It doesn't need a name. Heck, it doesn't need markers. All of those things go into making such a trail more established and maintained, but they aren't prerequisites to a "trail" being some official thing. The word "trail" in the answer was literally a direct reference to the word choice in the question asked, which mentioned "path/trail". You should be able to see a path lead up to and away from the bridge in a satellite view.

    Generally, you should be able to see the trail marked on the maps view, but honestly that isn't always the case if you haven't had openstreetmap volunteers adding the trails in your area. Again, it's super common where I live for real and completely legitimate trails to be visible on satellite view and not be marked on the map view until I generally go in and add them myself. A trail in the woods with tree cover is obviously more difficult to judge, so you should make use of what information you have. If there is a photosphere that shows the path and the bridge, that really should be sufficient (obviously, with the caveat that you have to use your own judgement on rating that the location is believable).

    I think it's a bit ridiculous to require a link to a trail map, when it has literally never been stated, anywhere, that footbridges are only acceptable along named trails. Along a trail and used as a part of that, yes, sure, but that goes along with my direct point above re: "trail" vs "footpath" vs "path". The "named" part is my big sticking point -- "named" has never been required, officially, anywhere I can find. If you could point me to the location where it states that only official and named trails are eligible, I'd be happy to change how I am reviewing. But I can't find that anywhere, and not for a lack of looking. Also, when you consider that there's further confusion around URLs in submissions (including the fact that URLs may be flagged for manual review before they go into voting), with mixed messages from Niantic as to whether they are acceptable, should be included, or should he avoided, and I think it's just simply too much.

    Honestly, I doubt I'm going to change anybody's mind, and you're certainly not going to change my mind without pointing me to any further official communication. I'd appreciate @NianticCasey-ING chiming in to clarify on these points. If I'm wrong or mistaken, I'd be happy to change how I'm reviewing to match the official guidance. If I'm not mistaken, I'd hope that others would adapt the way they're reviewing based on any clarification given. At this point, I would just like some clarity.

  • grendelwulf-INGgrendelwulf-ING Posts: 301 ✭✭✭✭

    We need to start using "recreational trails" to distinguish between trails whose only purpose is hiking, biking recreationally and paths that are only there to connect 2 points.

  • What about something like this? Is a sidewalk not a path for pedestrians? It's a wooden footbridge on a pedestrian path...

  • Senmana-INGSenmana-ING Posts: 129 ✭✭✭✭

    My understanding is that it's not eligible because it's not part of a trail. That's how I interpreted the criteria anyway. Hopefully Niantic clear it up though

  • JSteve0-INGJSteve0-ING Posts: 516 ✭✭✭✭
    edited April 2020

    @HEINZORchris-PGO That does not appear to either be a trail, or a walking path within the limits of a park so it is probably not eligible. If it were part of a designated trail system, regardless of serving the function of a sidewalk, it could be eligible.

  • Dice3423-INGDice3423-ING Posts: 817 ✭✭✭✭

    It is a bridge for pedestrian access. It is still a structure that is a bridge that can be used by pedestrians. I would vote on this as a yes but a lower rating than ones in a park. These are common on Jogger and Bike Routes.

  • I figured it stood a low chance of going through, but perhaps with some lax understanding of what a "path" means, it may make it through. I was upset at first but understand a lot more now after talking with folks in my discord

  • bobofango-INGbobofango-ING Posts: 17 ✭✭
    edited April 2020

    It's gotten so ridiculous what people are trying to pass off as a "footbridge on a trail" LMAO

    Someone on reddit Wayfarer tried to argue that wooden planks 4 feet long, over a foot high "dip" was eligible. I facepalmed so hard.

  • Dice3423-INGDice3423-ING Posts: 817 ✭✭✭✭

    Is it a bridge? If so it isn't trying to pass off anything. They are trying to follow guidance. A lot of ingress agents who have been doing it for years still may not know proper guidance for things. Even with 10k+ agreements.

Sign In or Register to comment.