Introducing the India Wayfarer Challenge: 16 - 26 March Learn More
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: https://niantic.helpshift.com/a/wayfarer/

Wooden bridges on trails - did I unterstand the guidelines wrong?

Hello, I'm not sure if I'm completely missunderstand the guidelines for wooden foot bridges on trails, or if I get unlucky with submitting these almost all the time...

I was in the holidays last week and was around 600 KM away from home, so I thought, why not submitting a few candidates out there. For now, all of them got accepted, two left in voting and these wooden footbridge was rejected. I thought that would be an easy accept, because it's an wooden bridge, that connects trails between two parts of an castle ruin, in an forest. You must walk 15 minutes up to the castle and also down. It's an forest, it's in the nature. Here is an picture of my submission, I will try to translate the title and description first (the "Burgruine" means an ruin of a castle):


Title: Castle bridge "Burgruine Eberbach"

Description: Wooden bridge, which connects two parts of the castle ruin Eberbach. All ways to and from the bridge can be used as a walking trail.

Support Info: Wooden walking bridge through an walking trail in the nature / forest, at the Castle Ruin „Burgruine Eberbach“. According the guidlines it should be acceptable (point 3): https://wayfarer.nianticlabs.com/help#aktualisierungsprotokoll-für-zulassungskriterien - Laut Punkt 3 (Link) ok.


Here are pictures of the submission and support info (I marked a person red in the support info here for this thread, so that she is not visible - on wayfarer it wasn't marked red) - AND you can actualy see the castle behind the bridge on the wayspot photo... :

So, i got two bridges only accepted back in november 2019, when I put the link to the guidelines in the support info, but since then, absolutely no bridges, except a single one, went through. Every time and everywhere such bridges that I'm submitting are getting rejected. I always upload an Photosphere on Google StreetView when submitting anything. Here is the rejection reason for the bridge:

So, NO, that isn't a natural feature! Why are reviewers almost always picking wrong reasons that absoulutely doesn't make sense?! I reviewed over 25 thousand Nominations by myself and ever have picked an rejection reason that is right in my opinion. The other part, that it doesn't meet critera... maybe I understant the guidelines wrong, but doesn't the following info mean, that the wooden bridge, that I submitted, is eligible?

It's an wooden bridge on an walking trail, it's in the nature / forest and can be used as a part of the trail.

Maybe... I understand these two things wrong?

- It's not a named trail. But it is an trail that can be used for walking to and from the castle, or just for walking through the forest. Maybe.... such bridges are only allowed, when they are part of an NAMED Walking trail or when they are part of an park? BUT in the guideline, Niantic doesn't wrote anything about that, there is nothing mentioned about that such bridges are only acceptable when they're part of an NAMED trail.

The problem is, almost all wooden walking bridges that I found, doesn't have a trail name that they are part of.

- It's in the nature, but not in an "nature preserve". Maybe reviewers think "Yeah, that's not an named nature preserve, nature alone is not enough"

- Yeah, it's not in an park. But must in a park? In the Question you can see: ... "throughout a park OR nature preserve..."

- Maybe i completely missunderstood the word "trail" here?!

- Or maybe I completely missunderstood the word "wooden walking bridges" and small bridges like these are always a no go?!


And yeah, I agree that it's not an special bridge.... before these updated october 2019 guidelines went live, I never submitted them and always rejected such submissions too, for being nothing special. But since they're allowed (for my understanding?!), I'm submitting these and give them an good rating while reviewing. Not we're making the critera, it's Niantic that make the criteria.


So... what I want with this thread is only clarification. Does I understand the guidelines wrong and if yes, please tell me which part or parts I'm missunderstanding. When such bridges are really ineligible, I will stop submitting these and start to reject them again. Or does I got unlucky with almost every submission and should just resubmit, until they went through?


Thank you in advance and here is an second example of an bridge that got rejected five times in a row with different reasons ("Generic Business", "Natural feature like waterfall", "Doesn't meet criteria" and one time as a duplicate of an other nearby bridge that went thorugh by the second try in november 2019). Please clear it out for me - are these two or at least one of them acceptable, or clearly none of them?


Titile: Forest trail bridge of Klosterholz

Description: Wooden bridge, which, together with two others, can be used for walking in the forest "Klosterholz". The trail in this forest connects the district Osterholz with important spots in the city, like the Trainstation or the football / sport field."

Support Info: Not an duplicate, please look exactly, three bridges exist here. Please read point three in the wayfarer guidelines: LINK - encourages to walk and connects ways with important spots in the city, and because of that it's an interesting spot.

Maybe.... the second bridge is too generic since two in the near of them are already existing wayspots? BUT I don't saw anything in the guidelines about that, that only one or two bridges in the near of themselves are acceptable...


Sorry for any misspellings by myself and for the long text. Thank you in advance for your answers!

«1

Answers

  • FrealafGB-PGOFrealafGB-PGO Posts: 217 ✭✭✭

    I have never had a footbridge accepted even though I also understood footbridges on trails and in parks to be eligible. I even had a footbridge on a named trail complete with trail marker rejected for "doesn't meet criteria"


    So I'd like to understand more too.

  • TheFarix-PGOTheFarix-PGO Posts: 1,874 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Is the trail marked on Google Maps? Are there existing trail markers that are already Wayspots? Reviews may be doubting the claim that this bridge is on a trail.

  • Faversham71-INGFaversham71-ING Posts: 306 ✭✭✭✭

    It took me three attempts to get a trail bridge passed (wooden bridge with named trail markers on each end, named trail marked on google maps). I put it down to reviewer ignorance

  • grsmhiker-INGgrsmhiker-ING Posts: 137 ✭✭✭

    I wouldn't put any confidence in the reasons given in the rejection emails, sometimes reviewers are too lazy to choose properly. One possibility is that, as far as we understand, a few reviewers giving two stars in a category or two can be enough to lead to rejection. Say, for example, that the bridge is under tree cover, so enough people rate 1* or 2* for location because the bridge "cannot be found on the map". Then, maybe a few of them assign 1-3* for cultural significance. That could potentially tip the nomination into a rejection... but not generate a reason as shown in the rejection email. Then, one reviewer incorrectly chooses "natural feature" as a 1* reason, because they don't want to bother, and that's the text that gets put into the email.

  • SPD85-PGOSPD85-PGO Posts: 128 ✭✭✭

    I'm really surprised by this. Footbridges are one of the few things that I haven't had any trouble with. I guess reviewers in your area are significantly different from those around me and don't know the rules regarding bridges. Those should be accepted. Do those trail bridges exist on either Google Maps or the satellite view? If not, does the map show a trail and a river (the crossing usually indicates a bridge)?

    I've gotten ones accepted in the middle of the woods in a reservation. All were located on trails, and aside from one, none were visually interesting. One thing that I have done is give the bridge a good name like "XX trail footbridge," sometimes with an additional description to distinguish it from other footbridges on the same trail.

  • johnd131313-PGOjohnd131313-PGO Posts: 10 ✭✭

    Because most of the "old guard" Ingress reviewers are biased. Fact plain and simple. They a re bitter they did the work at first exclusively and now more people can submit. Petty, but true in cases like this.

  • Gendgi-PGOGendgi-PGO Posts: 1,079 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Leave out the bias. You have no proof that it was rejected by Ingress players, no need to make those claims that will not sit well in here.

  • JoshuaBr1997-INGJoshuaBr1997-ING Posts: 7 ✭✭

    I don't think that it has to do with ingress players vote on my submissions. I think that some part of ingress players, some part of pogo and some part of both are reviewing these submssions and from every game there is at least one person that is rejecting... And maybe from each game there are some people that are rating the bridges good, but most reviewers seems to rate the bridges low or reject them, sadly...

    That's it. You can't see which players voted on your submission. There will always be reviewers without knowledge about some guidelines and are voting wrong on several submissions...

  • JoshuaBr1997-INGJoshuaBr1997-ING Posts: 7 ✭✭

    Glad to know, that I'm not alone. Good luck for you, that you will get some accepted in the future!

    You can see the trail on google maps (satellite view) and I uploaded an photosphere. Sadly, I can not resubmit the first example bridge, but the second that was already rejected five times, because it's near my home. The bridge from my second example is just part of an trail, but doesn't have an river under it - but can this be an rejection reason? Here also is an visible trail (part of the trail in the screenshot):

    And here the photosphere: https://goo.gl/maps/aBB6P1wYrgQNHuW27

    That's sad. I thought, my bridges get rejected because of an missing trail marker, but even with an trail marker, yours got rejected two times? I also think, that some reviewers without the knowledge reviewed your first attempts. But nice, that it finally got accepted with the third try!

    That's make sense. Thanks for the clarification! Maybe one person picked an wrong reason and that is shown in the e-mail. Hopefully, Niantic does something in the future, to prevent wrong reasons all the time and take action against these people... My submitted footbridge is not an generic business and not an natural feature... The reasons shown in the emails are almost completely useless for me... Yes, they can, of course, be usefull, but when people just select wrong reasons, it doesn't help the submitter at all.

    Very nice that you haven't had trouble with footbridges. My footbridge nominations are getting rejected all the time... Only last year, shortly after the updated guideline went live, 2 bridges were accepted and one was accepted in april 2020. But thank you all, I guess I should just keep on resubmiting these bridges until they're getting accepted.

    Yeah, you can see the trail (marked on google maps, but covered from trees), and I uploaded an photosphere. You can see it at the middle of these post from me. I will try to give the bridges different names in the next tries. I choosed something like "Woodenbridge in the forest of Klosterholz" and than something more creative titles, but every time, reviewers reject my bridges...


    Thank you all! I'll keep on resubmitting the bridges and am glad to know, that they are eligible and I don't submitted trash or does something wrong! If anything is bad about my mentionend example submissions, please let me know, so that I can improve or stop submitting these.

  • FrealafGB-PGOFrealafGB-PGO Posts: 217 ✭✭✭

    I have a bridge in voting now that was rejected once already... This submission is better than the first, so I have some hope. But I think it will be rejected even though I am convinced it is eligible. I guess I'll find out in a couple of months!


  • Sugarstarzkill-PGOSugarstarzkill-PGO Posts: 437 ✭✭✭✭✭

    It looks eligible to me.


    But I can already see it getting rejected for "live animal". It SHOULD NOT get rejected for that. The ducks aren't the focus and are just incidental (I happen to like it). But lord do some people get overly picky and are not aware of the guidance around the "live animal " rejection.


    For your sake, I hope it doesn't happen. If you remember, update us once you get a decision.

  • FrealafGB-PGOFrealafGB-PGO Posts: 217 ✭✭✭

    Haha yes I'm sure it could be rejected for live animal! Nothing would surprise me anymore.


    As I understand that rule, it means don't nominate a live animal i.e. don't nominate some swans to be a waypoint. However people seem to interpret it as 'there can't be any animals in the picture at all'. We have had 2 submissions accepted previously with birds in (it's really hard to take pictures near the river that don't contain any birds!) so I'm hoping this is OK too. However because it's a footbridge, I don't hold out much hope.

  • PoMaQue-PGOPoMaQue-PGO Posts: 191 ✭✭✭✭

    The problem is that a lot of people confuse "Trail" with "Path".

    The criteria refers to Walking Trails, where you have Trail Markers etc. If a bridge is part of that trail (there would be trail markers nearby), then it's eligible.

    Then there is the issue of people understanding the clarification how it suits them better.

    People who want to accept everything will claim any footbridge is OK and deliberately ignore the "Trail" part.

    People who want to reject everything will focus on the "wooden" part and reject any eligible footbridge not made out of wood.

  • Euthanasio2-PGOEuthanasio2-PGO Posts: 193 ✭✭✭

    I got half of my footbridges accepted and half of them rejected.

    Despite having Niantic's blessing for them and trail markers, they tend to be rejected a lot. I personally suggest downloading Street Views and adding a photosphere as it will prove their existences to reviewers (because apparently a footbridge with tons of trees and tons of trees on Satellite Views do not prove it's existence) Doing this will upload a blue dot on google maps(it might take a few days to have it approved though)

    You may want to give a link to Niantic's guide where they officially state they are eligible in additional informations as well.

  • Euthanasio2-PGOEuthanasio2-PGO Posts: 193 ✭✭✭

    I will follow your advice, but I am struggling to find the link. Google only gives me random reddit forums

  • 0X00FF00-ING0X00FF00-ING Posts: 350 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Q43: There was a recent debate on reddit about “Bridges” being portal candidates. Regular car bridges clearly should not be portals, however what about wooden walking trail bridges throughout a park or nature preserve on the trail/path?

    A43: The answer from NIA OPS is, “If they are accessible by foot and expected to be used as part of the trail, they would meet criteria.”


  • FrealafGB-PGOFrealafGB-PGO Posts: 217 ✭✭✭

    I've quoted that before on 3 footbridge submissions in parks.. Still rejected, because of course the people who are rejecting them probably don't read that far!

  • Euthanasio2-PGOEuthanasio2-PGO Posts: 193 ✭✭✭

    Try to add this to your description since many reviewers just mass reject everything they don't want to be accepted instead of what Niantic officially state.


    Pedestrian bridges used as part of trails are acceptable wayspots per the October 2019 update to wayfarer

    Link to the guide

    https://niantic.helpshift.com/a/wayfarer/?p=web&s=wayspot-acceptance-criteria&f=niantic-wayfarer-clarifications-october-2019&l=en

  • FrealafGB-PGOFrealafGB-PGO Posts: 217 ✭✭✭

    Thanks. When I resubmit in a few months (once they get a decision) I'll use that.

  • PoMaQue-PGOPoMaQue-PGO Posts: 191 ✭✭✭✭

    Unless the bridge is unique on its own (clearly historic, visually so specific it can be deemed art etc) a simple footbridge in a park is not eligible. The criteria states it needs to be part of a trail. So unless you can show evidence that it's part of the i.e. "Harry Harryhausen Walking Trail", it's just a footbridge in a park.

    When Niantic says "Trail", they do not mean "any random path". The "trail/path" mentioned above means "if it's part of the Trail you are walking on".

  • FrealafGB-PGOFrealafGB-PGO Posts: 217 ✭✭✭

    I interpreted that clarification as footbridges on walking trails inside a park can be eligible in their own right. For example if its on a path that enables you to explore the park then that is OK?


    Either way I've submitted a mix of park path footbridges and named trail footbridges of varying construction, some over a brook, one over a little river and some over parts of the main river. Some were pretty strong submissions and some weaker. All rejected. Hopefully I'll get one accepted eventually and then I can take my learnings as to what worked and apply that to the other submissions.

  • Euthanasio2-PGOEuthanasio2-PGO Posts: 193 ✭✭✭

    Unless The grammar was atrocious. It's not your fault. Too many reviewers think wooden footbridges and trail markers should be rejected despite the official guides saying they are legitimate

  • PoMaQue-PGOPoMaQue-PGO Posts: 191 ✭✭✭✭

    It needs to be a walking trail with trail markers etc. Not just a path that goes through the park.

  • aazide-INGaazide-ING Posts: 2 ✭✭

    I have had several footbridges accepted and several rejected. In my area, the reviewers appear to prefer bridges that have handrails and show visible water beneath the bridge. Low boardwalk type bridges are often rejected (although I believe those bridge types are valid).

    Another issue with footbridges is that it is often impossible for the reviewer to confirm the location due to a lack of streetview coverage for trails. Some of my early submissions were rejected for unconfirmed location. To fix this, it's critical to submit a google photosphere with the waypoint nomination. Make sure the photosphere shows a clear view of the bridge.

  • sogNinjaman-INGsogNinjaman-ING Posts: 824 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I'd agree with this point. Throughout the Wayfarer Guidelines, Niantic talk about "Named Trails", so much so that I assume that any "Trail" mentioned must be a "Named Trail" - ie one that has eligeable trail markers. For footbridges, only the word "Trail" is used. For me, that means a "Named Trail". For other people, they take it to mean any sort of path, which means they assume that it makes a footbridge eligable. Perhaps we could ask @NianticCasey to add it to the list of things that need specifying - named trail or any path?

  • PoMaQue-PGOPoMaQue-PGO Posts: 191 ✭✭✭✭

    Well the user's question was "What about wooden walking trail bridges throughout a park or nature preserve on the trail/path? "

    In my eyes, "Walking Trail" indicates the standard Named Trail. Otherwise the question would have simply been "What about bridges in parks?"

  • FrealafGB-PGOFrealafGB-PGO Posts: 217 ✭✭✭

    I read that the other way and thought it meant any walking trail within a park - i.e. the paths that allow people to explore the park. I didn't think it was this complicated. Most parks don't contain named trails, they just have paths. So if your interpretation is true then most parks wouldn't have acceptable footbridges. It would be nice to get this straight because I am reviewing to accept park path footbridges but it sounds like everyone else wants them to be accepted on named trails only.

  • Euthanasio2-PGOEuthanasio2-PGO Posts: 193 ✭✭✭

    I accept them in park too. If wooden footbridges are accepted in trails, can someone gives a single reason why they should not be accepted in parks?

  • PoMaQue-PGOPoMaQue-PGO Posts: 191 ✭✭✭✭

    Because a generic footbridge in a park is not visually, historically or culturally significant, most look like 20,000 other small wooden bridges that are littered everywhere.

    The initial question was specifically about Walking Trails, where you need to go from point A to B, C etc and where the bridge is a unique station on the trail.

Sign In or Register to comment.