Submitting trail marker nominations

Are trail markers a good idea for a nomination? For example:

- markers in the mountains or nature reserves,

- markers in zoos,

-historical trail markers,

-markers of tourist trails,

-markers of tourist trails,

-sports school markers (e.g. riding trail).

 

Of course, we are talking about permanent markers in the form of signs or boards, not lines painted on trees.

Comments

  • TWVer-INGTWVer-ING Posts: 774 ✭✭✭✭✭

    It all depends on what their purpose is. Is it a great place to exercise, explore or socialize, or does it represent a great place to exercise, explore or socialize. A trail marker usually represents a great place to exercise and a great place to explore. It doesn't matter where it is located (as long as the location isn't in the rejection criteria, but that is very rare for a trail marker).

    What do you mean by markers in zoos? Arrows that say the monkeys are in that direction? That is not really a trail marker, but a directional marker. It doesn't represent a great place to exercise, explore or socialize. Or is it a dedicated trail in the zoo that you can follow to explore the zoo?

    Trail markers that are lines painted on trees are great for nominations as well. Why would they not be great? Trails marked by those markers encourage exercise and exploration just as well as trails marked by metal signs with the name of the trail on it. And they are just as permanent as those metal signs as well. I know many people don't like them, but that is because most Wayfarer users primarily like the exploration criteria, and only look at the object itself, not what it represents. Don't listen to those people. Lines painted on trees are just as great as any other type of trail marker. They have the same purpose as any other type of marker.

    Just make sure you provide enough evidence that the trail is passing through that location, and that the marker you are nominating is in that location, or at least likely to be in that location. A link to a trail map can help. So does including landmarks in your supporting photo if that is a possibility. Also make sure you still include the marker in your supporting photo as well. Also try to give every marker you nominate a unique name.

  • thenamelesskath-PGOthenamelesskath-PGO Posts: 306 ✭✭✭

    Perfect response, except I feel compelled to add that "directional markers" *can* be great for exploration and there is/was a Niantic clarification somewhere stating that directional signs that are far enough from the POI to be considered independent can be valid nominations in their own right. There's probably so many in a zoo that it wouldn't be very worthwhile, though 🤷‍♀️

  • TurioPL-PGOTurioPL-PGO Posts: 33 ✭✭

    Thanks for the concise and comprehensive answer. Personally, I agree with what you wrote, which is why I have already reported all trail markers (in my case they were most often in the form of plaques or signs, as you can see in the photos below). Unfortunately, many reviewers don't find trail markers interesting or lasting. Oddly enough, for some reason, I often had submissions like the ones below rejected due to their alleged lack of durability (which I think is complete nonsense and I would report these reviewers if I could).

    Regarding these markers in the form of painted lines on trees, I believe that their durability is the same as graffiti or murals. However, I don't think I have enough patience to try to submit them (maybe 1 in 10 will be accepted).

    Regarding the various tag examples that I mentioned at the beginning, I tried to list as many of them as possible so that if there are people with similar questions, they can already find answers to their questions here.

    The attached photos show the historical tourist trail (war trail) as well as the forest nature trail.


  • MargariteDVille-INGMargariteDVille-ING Posts: 2,741 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Going thru the examples requested:

    As Niantic explained it in a 2022 VPS conference: Markers are valid on trails because trails are a line, and wayspots are a single point. They want something unique - not a **** or tree - as anchor for a trail. (See footnote)

    A mark ON a tree is both man-made and nature - so it's subjective (reviewer discretion). This would cover mountain trails, nature reserve trails, etc.

    A directional marker at a zoo - is not why you went to the zoo. When you're there, you're not exploring to see the signs. However, an exhibit sign (at the place of interest) is a great proxy for, say, a lion.

    By "tourist trails" I assume you mean like thru a town, where the tourist goes to point 1, then point 2, and so on. The points are all points of interest, like an old building, or inn where George Washington slept, or location of a battle. The points have tour signs with a QR code, or text, telling why this building/park/whatever is significant. YES the signs for a tourist trail are great wayspots.

    "Sports school markers" - not if the school is primarily for minors (under age 18). If it's a "pay to play" school for anyone, then it's more subjective. You could see it like a trail. OR you could see it like a golf course, where the wayspot at the gate represents the whole thing (one giant sports field - no one goes, plays holes 10, 13, and 17 twice, then leaves), so the holes are part of the whole waypoint. OR any of a million other ways of seeing it.


    Footnote: You can watch the whole thing on Niantic's YouTube channel here:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GeqPJ47SXPY&list=PLCyCMgj5D_z7rtq_6UamxxgMNNvEjoulK&index=14 I suggest watching the first 7 minutes, then skip to minute 13 for the Q&A.

  • TurioPL-PGOTurioPL-PGO Posts: 33 ✭✭


    So, according to Niantic, the trail markers shown in the photos are suitable for nominations? Not counting the ones in the trees, because with them it may be different. The photos attached above show two different types of trails (because that's what I encountered in this area). 1 - historical war trail, on the route there are war cemeteries, trenches, memorial and battle sites, etc. 2 - horse riding trail, on the route there are stables and the trail itself is usually quieter (i.e. less car traffic or no traffic at all). If I understand all this correctly, reporting these types of signs/trail markers makes sense because Niantic said so, and the trails themselves usually fall into one of the three required categories (good for exploration, training, or meeting others), right?

  • TWVer-INGTWVer-ING Posts: 774 ✭✭✭✭✭

    It is in the Help section, under Wayfarer FAQ:

    Should the sign for a Wayspot nomination be marked as a duplicate if there is already a Wayspot for the object the sign represents?

    If the sign is a significant distance from the object then it should be considered on its own. If it is close, such as with a church sign and a nearby church building, then it should be marked as a duplicate.

  • TWVer-INGTWVer-ING Posts: 774 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Where in the criteria does it say that wayspots must be man-made? That something is on a tree is irrelevant in regards to the criteria.

    What in that video (and where) could be interpreted as talking about trail markers or similar objects? I must be missing it.

  • TurioPL-PGOTurioPL-PGO Posts: 33 ✭✭

    Lo and behold, it was rejected for allegedly being a "Temporary or Seasonal Exposure."


  • TWVer-INGTWVer-ING Posts: 774 ✭✭✭✭✭

    It can help to add some links to clarifications of the criteria to convince some reviewers. This one is a really good one for trailmarkers:

    https://community.wayfarer.nianticlabs.com/discussion/comment/111961#Comment_111961

    As you are aware, we consider any marker on a hiking trail as acceptable since our goal is to have folks explore. Even a small marker on a trail will encourage players to cover more of the trail if there are more Wayspots on the way.

    It might still take a while for your nominations to be accepted, but the more people that see these clarifications, the more people that will vote positively on your nominations. It took years and many rejections in my country to convince people on the eligibility of trail markers, but now the vast majority of them are accepted. The elitist abusers that kept refusing them saw their ratings drop and either also started accepting them, or quit Wayfarer. Most people try to do the right thing, and if you can counter the elitists with facts, you can convince enough honest reviewers to make a difference. I hope you can do the same in your area.

  • Elijustrying-INGElijustrying-ING Posts: 5,299 Ambassador

    The subject of trail markers is never ending 😂

    This post (gosh it’s getting close to 2 years old ) is the one most often referred to

    this the relevant screenshot of what is called the Giffard scale


    And this more recent post also discussed their value.

    The material and size of the trail marker shouldn’t matter. It is all about the markers function in enabling a trail to be followed. They act as anchor points along the trail.

    The reason the subject still surfaces is that not everyone interprets it quite the same.

    At the moment the question on whether something is permanent and distinct returns only the reason temporary and seasonal. Some people may be interpreting a 👎 based on whether the marker is distinctive from others.

  • MargariteDVille-INGMargariteDVille-ING Posts: 2,741 ✭✭✭✭✭

    You object to my interpretation that maybe a mark in a tree is acceptable because it is man-made, versus a plain shrub, rock, dirt, tree. OK - as I said it's subjective. You may believe that a man-made mark does not make a tree acceptable. It's community-driven, aka "user curated". You are part of the community. But maybe check the link I gave, around 13 minutes in.

  • TWVer-INGTWVer-ING Posts: 774 ✭✭✭✭✭

    No, I object to the opposite. It shouldn't matter what the mark is on, only what it's purpose is. A mark painted on a tree is just as good as a metal sign. Nowhere in the criteria does it suggest there is a difference. It is not the tree that is being nominated, it is a trail marker, that happens to be painted on a tree. That last part is irrelevant.

    Did you post the correct link? Because there are a lot of video's in that playlist, and the one you linked to has nothing about trails in it.

  • TurioPL-PGOTurioPL-PGO Posts: 33 ✭✭

    In my opinion, the issue of markers painted on trees is like graffiti or murals. If someone accepts graffiti and murals because they consider them to be something permanent, non-seasonal, then they should also accept these markers on trees. However, regardless of this, painted tree markers or plaques will probably always raise controversy. Why? Because many reviewers do not read the descriptions and automatically assume that the application concerns a tree = an element of nature (which, as far as I know, cannot be submitted, only objects referring to them, e.g. plaques or signs, can be submitted).

    And that's a fact. It's not that you can't accept something on a tree or a stone, but the community has its blind perspective and that's it.

  • thenamelesskath-PGOthenamelesskath-PGO Posts: 306 ✭✭✭

    an element of nature (which, as far as I know, cannot be submitted, only objects referring to them, e.g. plaques or signs, can be submitted).

    Natural features can be submitted without a sign or manmade anchor, FYI, but they obviously need a reasonable, safe, and visually identifiable point of discovery at which to place the pin 👍

  • Shritwod-INGShritwod-ING Posts: 139 ✭✭✭

    I do submit a lot of trail markers, and also review a lot..

    Here's what I find works (your experience may vary): markers for named trails that can be verified with an external source, where the markers are made from some permanent or durable material (e.g. plastic) and have a good supporting photo to help locate them, photospheres or StreetView being best.

    Markers on adhesive labels, hand-made ones or metal directional signs often get rejected because I think reviewers concentrate too much on the marker and not the existence of the trail - leading to them getting rejected for not being permanent enough, or not being distinctive (in the case of directioanl signs). You are not visiting the wayspot to see the marker, you are visiting the wayspot to walk the trail. But honestly, they get rejected so often I rarely bother.

    I would say that there is a difference between a walking trail - with a defined route usually over some distance - and a footpath marker which may only be for a short distance connecting a couple of points together. Where I live, public footpath signs are everywhere. Only a few of them are parts of walking trails. I accept that some unmarked paths may also be walking trails, but there really should be some supporting evidence for that.

    Note that different countries may have different footpath and trail networks. As I said, they are really common where I live and these paths have existed for hundreds of years, but they are just a quick way to get about and aren't something to explore.

  • TurioPL-PGOTurioPL-PGO Posts: 33 ✭✭

    What do you mean "some supporting evidence"? I can only attach a few pages with information about this initiative (the process of erecting these signs began a few years ago and concerns a certain area of ​​Poland - the one where the war front took place). And also some highly simplified maps that do not take into account the exact routes of the eastern front, but only approximate ones.

    Map 1: https://dzienniklodzki.pl/szlak-operacji-lodzkiej-mapki/gh/705309

    Map 2: https://www.lodzkie.pl/turystyka/wydawnictwa/mapy-tematyczne/szlak-samochodowy-i-wojny-%C5%9Bwiatowej-w-regionie-%C5%82%C3%B3dzkim-front-wschodni-1914-15

    Page: https://www.lubelskietravel.pl/szlaki/szlak-frontu-wschodniego-i-wojny-swiatowe

    Is this enough evidence? Either way, there is one significant problem - reviewers rarely check attached links. And I'm not surprised, because who knows where it leads.

  • TurioPL-PGOTurioPL-PGO Posts: 33 ✭✭

    What do you mean "some supporting evidence"? I can only attach a few pages with information about this initiative (the process of erecting these signs began a few years ago and concerns a certain area of ​​Poland - the one where the war front took place). And also some highly simplified maps that do not take into account the exact routes of the eastern front, but only approximate ones.

    Map 1: https://dzienniklodzki.pl/szlak-operacji-lodzkiej-mapki/gh/705309

    Map 2: https://www.lodzkie.pl/turystyka/wydawnictwa/mapy-tematyczne/szlak-samochodowy-i-wojny-%C5%9Bwiatowej-w-regionie-%C5%82%C3%B3dzkim-front-wschodni-1914-15

    Page: https://www.lubelskietravel.pl/szlaki/szlak-frontu-wschodniego-i-wojny-swiatowej

    Map SS (one from those above):

    Is this enough evidence? Either way, there is one significant problem - reviewers rarely check attached links. And I'm not surprised, because who knows where it leads.

    In my opinion, everything is correct, here you even have SS from Street View, which shows this marker. The difference is that there were no traffic lights at the intersection back then. But the area is so characteristic that no one should have any doubts about the location. The SV is from 2021, and it's 2024, so a lot of time has passed.

  • Shritwod-INGShritwod-ING Posts: 139 ✭✭✭

    I was talking in general terms, not about your submissions which largely seem to meet the criteria IMO. Sometimes perfectly good submissions get rejected for no really good reason, tweaking and resubmitting does seem to work in a lot of cases.

Sign In or Register to comment.