Does this summit marker have a chance?

A friend and I went hiking to a rather remote mountainous area a while ago, we found a not-so-obvious summit marker and submitted it, not surprisingly, it was knocked back simply as not eligible:

It's not a spectacular summit marker - we can tell there used to be a proper trig there but now days it's just a small piece of metal with "MT GININI" stamped in, that sits between 2 poles which usually denotes a "SC style" survey marker. Summit markers are eligible according to the guidelines, this summit also sits on a couple of trails that are well worth exploring, so I'm hoping we can somehow get this through eventually.

I'm going to guess that some suggestions would be to improve the main photo, do you guys think I should only focus on the metal **** with the mountain name? Right now you can tell the concrete plate that contains the metal **** is clearly a former trig stump of some sort, but if we got really close up for the photo, you wouldn't be able to tell what the thing is that the metal **** is attached to. Or should we just get up a little bit closer and have the concrete plate take up the whole frame and make the mountain name more legible?

That mountain summit isn't easy to go back to, so I figured I'd ask for opinions before going back there.


  • Kroutpiick-PGOKroutpiick-PGO Posts: 367 ✭✭✭✭


    Geodetic and survey markers are generally eligible if they are in a nice place to visit. In your case, I would consider a summit as a nice place to bring friends.

    However, I'm not sure if what you submitted is really a survey or geodetic marker : it usually have a serial number, not only the mount name but i'm not working in this domain.

    The hard part would be to proove the location only with satellite view. It may help to submit a photosphere (with Street view app).

    You can also add this URL in the supplemental information :

    (It's not a Niantic's official answer, but the community tends to say "yes" about survey/geodetic markers.)

  • cyndiepooh-INGcyndiepooh-ING Posts: 797 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I just approved a summit marker that was clear and easy to read. This just looks like some hardware in some crumbled foundation stone - that is not any fault of yours. If you can find any official documentation that shows this is the summit marker, then resubmit and provide the link in the supporting information. (You don't need the stuff about Mt Ginini being popular there.) If not, I wouldn't bother. Use the Google Street View App to place a photosphere to support your nomination if you do go back up. And do submit a photo where you can read the stamp - but don't zoom in so close that it looks like a random piece of metal.

    Good luck! That would be a very cool location if you can get it through.

  • 0X00FF00-ING0X00FF00-ING Posts: 761 ✭✭✭✭✭

    My answer is my general position for all submissions.

    The current state of the nomination, as in how well it's been maintained, isn't really supposed to be part of the reviewers' purview. Something that's damaged or defaced should still be valid, so long as it's otherwise valid and permanent.

    However there is a difference between "neglected/damaged" and "abandoned". Like a ghost town, some things fall into such a state of disrepair that it's obvious they're no longer intended to be used as originally intended.

    I've had multiple rejections for trail markers whose only fault was that appearance of neglect due to graffiti.

    Your specific example above would then still qualify as "permanent", and thus still valid.

  • AeriTheBOFH-PGOAeriTheBOFH-PGO Posts: 186 ✭✭✭

    Thanks for the inputs. On the day I thought about submitting a photosphere but it was cold and windy up there so we thought we'd just grab some photos.

    In the older version of the guidelines, it explicitly spelled out summit markers are being eligible, so we figured it must have gotten knocked back on looks. The metal piece is readable to reviewers in wayfarer, just not in the thumbnail previews.

    Just looked up this marker on our local government's survey map (ACTmapi), it's actually a "MC" survey mark, aka a trig station. Trig stations are normally a ground mark plus a white quadripod with black disc, but this one's obviously only got the ground work left. I also suspect this survey marker used to belong to a different state (NSW, as this mountain is on the border) before being annexed.

    Might just resubmit with better supporting info, the survey map has exact coords for the marker as well so verifying location isn't a problem. I think the biggest problem is still reviewers will reject for random reasons if they didn't like the looks of something, but I don't get to find out for sure.

    There's another survey marker near the summit about 80 metres away, but it's not a summit marker - it's just a regular survey marker, do you guys think this has a better chance?

    I think I'd prefer the first one as a POI though, since it's an official summit marker.

  • HaramDays-PGOHaramDays-PGO Posts: 1,471 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Everyone loves survey markers in New South Wales. They have been getting approved in droves. Go for it!

  • AeriTheBOFH-PGOAeriTheBOFH-PGO Posts: 186 ✭✭✭

    Only if I/the submission were in NSW... 🙃 It misses the border by about 50 metres!

    It's ok, my friend blames the automatically-applied upgrade anyway. Or maybe we can submit both and try to get a gym up there. 😂

Sign In or Register to comment.