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:

Trail Names vs Mile Markers

"Adventurous, off-the-beaten-path tourist attractions—think lookout towers, observatories, signs or markers atop mountain peaks, etc."

"Trailheads, trail markers, mile/distance markers, etc. - Acceptable, if they have a trail name on them. Simple mile markers along a trail with nothing other than a number should be rejected."

I'd really like some additional clarity and perhaps rewording on the guidelines on trails. In my state, ALL of the state parks name their trails by simple numbers. These numbers ARE trail names, and they are very good adventurous places to encourage people to explore. THIS is the only marker that exists for most trailheads in a dozen local state parks:

Most people are interpreting the guidelines as saying to reject this, even though this is NOT a mile marker, it is an official trail name. How is a trail more worthy of a wayspot just because the people creating it decided to call it "Songbird Trail" instead of "Trail 3"? In many parts of the parks these are the only non-natural features that exist and the state parks system prefers to keep them fairly basic to reduce the detraction from the natural beauty. I love having trail features as wayspots. Not only does it encourage me to go out and walk, they actually can prove extremely useful when wandering through woods to help me keep my bearing, and to meet up with others if we are separated while exploring.

@NianticCasey-ING Can you please clarify what you mean by "simple mile marker" verses "trail name" and how it applies to these candidates that are so common in parks?

Best Answer


  • ElfFromSpace-INGElfFromSpace-ING Posts: 34 ✭✭✭

    And what if the trail name IS a number? Nominations of trailheads that are numbers have been getting rejected locally. I am seeking official clarification on whether they should be valid.

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

    No trail name no approval. Is how it currently stands. A number is not a trail name.

  • YouLostAStar-INGYouLostAStar-ING Posts: 280 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Finally something we can agree on, a simple number on a stick isn’t good enough (and that is stated in the guidance).

    there are many named trails out there and some useful sites with details of them, in the U.K. I use the Long Distance walks association to find nearby trails

  • NorthSeaPoet-INGNorthSeaPoet-ING Posts: 895 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Mile markers I accept if the description is well written, since, iirc it's illegal to remove them, especially the older ones.

    There's actually a mile marker around the corner from me that's built into a hairdresser's.

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

    If numbered trails were permitted every footpath in the UK would be eligible, as they're all given a designation e.g. CC10, ZF2 - I might be lenient if the markers use a symbol as a proxy for the name e.g. a picture of a Butterfly on the 'Butterfly Trail', but numbers no.

    19th Century milestones I'm fine with - modern 2m to Town no.

  • ElfFromSpace-INGElfFromSpace-ING Posts: 34 ✭✭✭

    I haven't seen examples of your footpaths, but is it that bad to have marked footpaths and trails highlighted? As an avid hiker, I get excited when I can find new trails I didn't know were there!

  • ElfFromSpace-INGElfFromSpace-ING Posts: 34 ✭✭✭

    So a tiny trail next to a church that gave it a name is more legitimate than every officially maintained and posted trail in every Indiana state park? This is why I'm asking for official clarification. Your stance is the common one, but I believe the reason that most people take your stance is that it's *easier* to review that way. Not that it's actually more logical or better for the wayspot network.

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

    We have an absolutely huge network over 1400000 miles just in England and Wales (excluding Scotland) and we're pretty small. They're also well signposted so that if all signs for public footpaths were allowed you would flood the game with them - within 5 minutes walk of me you could submit around 6 ordinary public footpath signs, on top of the named trails..

    Don't get me wrong - I'm a big fan of trailmarkers (I submitted 7 last week using up my 'free' nominations on a named 163 mile trail that runs through the town and out over the marshes, and have another 10 a couple of miles further on to submit. They are encouraging other players to explore outside the town too.

  • ElfFromSpace-INGElfFromSpace-ING Posts: 34 ✭✭✭

    Part of the issue too, is the trail heads verses the markers along the trail telling you to go this way at a bend. I'd LIKE to submit the trail heads and major intersections. I don't really want to see every directional sign submitted. We have that problem with a trail in town, where I have gotten 3 markers approved, and am hoping that it doesn't set an example that people will submit every single intersection. That trail has a name... but I would, honestly, consider it less worthy than the trails in the state parks since it's one name for a huge expanse of trails and they didn't even give the branches of the trail separate names. I used the names of the roads they're starting from to make them unique. Those passed... But, honestly, they could be spammed so badly since there's literally a sign like this at every single intersection with a road or apartment entrance crossing the trail. There are hundreds of them!!

  • NorthSeaPoet-INGNorthSeaPoet-ING Posts: 895 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Agreed, agreed, agreed. Below is an example of a mile marker I submitted, that whilst accepted, didn't go live due to close proximity to an existing wayspot.

  • ElfFromSpace-INGElfFromSpace-ING Posts: 34 ✭✭✭

    And the current guidelines, the way that players are interpreting them, FAIL to accomplish this goal. As I pointed out above, some trails are littered with hundreds of signs showing a "named" trail that would make very poor and spammy Wayspots. While other, very HIGH quality trailheads are being rejected because the government choses to standardize the trail names with numbers. Those trails are officially sanctioned and maintained and the trailheads for them should be very high quality wayspots.

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

    It is going to be a tough road. Wayfarer is the newest guidance. The older guidance is well known and been around a long time that was incorporated in Wayfarer for the release.

    January 2019

    Q22: Are Trail markers that use the picture/logo of the trail instead of a name a valid trail Marker for a portal if it meets all other criteria for a trail Marker portal submission?

    A22: We would need more context for this. There are trailheads that might have the picture of the trail that would be a good candidate. There are also “you are here” trail signs that might not.

    January 2018

    Q6: Happy New Year! My question is about trail markers. I submitted several directional trail markers (wooden posts with numbers and direction pointers on them). They all got rejected, although the guidelines say 5 stars? Can you clarify “trail markers” please?

    A6: If it is as you describe, just a wooden marker with a number and an arrow, that's probably not a good candidate to submit. Find markers that show the name of the trail and have a description of the trail.

  • grendelwulf-INGgrendelwulf-ING Posts: 264 ✭✭✭✭

    These are trailmarkers.

  • ElfFromSpace-INGElfFromSpace-ING Posts: 34 ✭✭✭

    The problem is that, even if I can convince reviewers that it is a major trail in a major state park (as evidenced by the state park map) you can see in the other comments that MOST reviewers have decided that a number is invalid and a word name is required. So we need an official statement from Niantic clarifying the difference between "Mile marker" with a number and Trail name that happens to be a number

  • ElfFromSpace-INGElfFromSpace-ING Posts: 34 ✭✭✭

    This is the closest to an answer. But I am bringing up the discussion here because I think it needs to be revisited to actually be appropriate. We have trails with a printed name that literally have signs every 10-30 feet along one stretch of road, but the way people interpret them, they have the name so they could all get accepted. Then we have the markers showing the start of a major mile long trail through the parks that is an official trail and the only sign for it, is like posted above. Giving something a word name does not make it a valid-significant trail.

Sign In or Register to comment.