Another trail marker discussion

13

Comments

  • TWVer-INGTWVer-ING Posts: 792 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Eligibility criteria:

    • Does it represent a biking trail and therefor promote exercise? Yes.

    Acceptance criteria:

    • Does it meet at least one of the 3 eligibility criteria? Yes.
    • Is it a permanent physical, tangible, and identifiable place or object, or object that placemarks an area? Yes.
    • Is it safe and publicly accessible by pedestrians? Depends on the location.
    • Does it contain accurate information in the title, description, and photo? Depends on the submission.

    Rejection criteria:

    • Does not meet eligibility criteria? We already established that it does. So, no.
    • Ineligible location, place, or object. Depends.
    • Etc. etc.

    Conclusion: If the location is safe and it has a decent title, description and photo, these are to be accepted.

    15.000 markers spread across a 450.000 km² country makes on average 1 marker per 30 km². That doesn't sound excessive.

  • sogNinjaman-INGsogNinjaman-ING Posts: 3,313 ✭✭✭✭✭

    You need a sign to support the description in the submission, saying "This path is a trailhead" is not good enough.

    (I'd like to know what Nianic mean by "trailhead" as well, I assume it's a US thing where you have a big sign saying "The XXX Trail starts here" - we don't have things like that in the UK).

  • flatmatt-PGOflatmatt-PGO Posts: 2,141 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited December 2020

    To me, a trailhead is any point on a trail where one would start their journey down the trail. It could be at the very start of the trail itself, but it could also be an access point along the trail where the trail comes near or crosses a road, for example. It doesn't have to have any particular type of sign to be a trailhead (but it does have to have a sign or some other marker to be an acceptable wayspot).

  • DerWelfe2205-PGODerWelfe2205-PGO Posts: 374 ✭✭✭✭

    Pushing this again because it's still a ~very~ debated topic and I haven't seen any clarification on this. My trail markers still get rejected around 90% of the time. (Again: Not talking about street signs but proper trail markers with the name of the trail on it not just a number etc.)


    The fact that they do get accepted very rarely and they linger in voting for very long shows that there is a large disunity in the reviewer base. At least in my area.

  • BigJoker107-PGOBigJoker107-PGO Posts: 24 ✭✭

    What exactly are trailheads and is this considered one? Or would this just be considered a trail and is acceptable? I always thought trailheads were signs or markers. Also, I understand the rules about title and description text as far as not being offensive and containing special characters and emojis, but what about misspellings, especially if there's a lot of them? Again, just trying to make sure I'm doing this correctly.



  • Jtronmoore-PGOJtronmoore-PGO Posts: 1,581 ✭✭✭✭✭

    That would be neither a trail head or qualify as a poi for a trail. Need to have something tangible to anchor the poi too. Aka a sign for the trail. Current guidelines in the ama’s show that it doesnt need to be named anymore for the trail marker.

  • Nadiwereb-PGONadiwereb-PGO Posts: 1,119 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Visual uniqueness doesn't mean that the object has to be one-of-a-kind or different from other similar objects at all. That's just not what that category is for.

    The Help page on Wayfarer gives very clear instructions of the matter:

    Does the nomination stand out from its surroundings? Wayspots that are easy to locate and visually distinct from the buildings and objects nearby make high-quality Wayspots and should be rated highly.

    In other words, the object has to be unique within its immediate surroundings, and not globally.

    People who argue that all trailmarkers/ playgrounds/ chapels/ crosses/info boards look the same and therefore they're ineligible simply don't understant the criteria.

  • DerWelfe2205-PGODerWelfe2205-PGO Posts: 374 ✭✭✭✭

    Exactly. But that's still the reason a lot of people give when they reject them. That's why I want Niantic to clarify. I'm tired of having to submit them a dozen times before they get accepted. (Even with photospheres etc.)

  • Nadiwereb-PGONadiwereb-PGO Posts: 1,119 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Niantic has already clarified this, it is explicitly stated on the Help page. There's not much more options for further clarifications unfortunately, because the people who review without reading/remembering the most basic rules wouldn't read clarifications anyway.

    I think the only true working solution would be to change the name of the category to something less easy to misunderstand (or, better still, remove the category altogether along with Cultural significance).

  • WheelTrekker-INGWheelTrekker-ING Posts: 3,388 ✭✭✭✭✭

    And how many times do you want them to clarify anything in these forums?

    Most of the people don't know that they exist, a few percentage of the rest might read them.

    Niantic should provide better guidance on Wayfarer, but these forums aren't the answer.

  • Euthanasio2-PGOEuthanasio2-PGO Posts: 272 ✭✭✭

    Indeed. They don't say anything on social medias about wayfarer and I just don't get it. Raising awareness would increase the number of waypoints and create plenty of new players(or players coming back to the game). Just an occasional"hey have you tried nominatings trail markers? Catching pokemon while hiking in nature is a fun way to play the game" or something. Most people don't go on these forum. In fact I show people screenshot of this place because I know they won't go there by their own will.

  • mantolwen-INGmantolwen-ING Posts: 27 ✭✭✭

    Hi Niantic and Wayfinders

    Under the new criteria there is no mention about trails needing to have a name to be eligible. In the UK we have a lot of paths through the countryside marked only with a "public footpath" sign. People use these to go on walks through the country or from one place to another. Are these public footpath signs now eligible?

    Similarly we have a network of cycle paths through the UK called the National Cycle Network. Each route on the network has a number (so route 1 goes from the south of England right up through Scotland, for example).

    Previously we would always have considered these to be ineligible since they are not named. In particular it was taken that the NCN is similar to a network of roads. However it is possible that under the new criteria both public footpaths through the countryside and the national cycle network could be considered under encouraging exercise.

    Having said that, this feels like we would be going backwards on criteria as these signs are very common all across the UK, and do not have any significance beyond what a road marker would be for a car. But that's my opinion.

    "A place you'd go to get some fresh air, stretch your legs, or exercise. Places that encourage walking, exercising, and enjoying public spaces. Or something that teaches or encourages us to be our healthiest selves.

    Examples of Wayspot categories

    ...

    • Hiking trails
    • Biking trails"
  • sogNinjaman-INGsogNinjaman-ING Posts: 3,313 ✭✭✭✭✭

    "Public Footpaths", along with "Public Bridleways", "Permissive Paths", "Unrestricted Bridleways" and "RUPP - Road used as a Public Path" have never been commonly accepted as these are not "Named Trails" and are everywhere, you can find the markers for these every 50m is some places. Lots still get submitted, I give them a 1* every time as a "generic, mass produced object". If it's a named trail marker, fine; if it just says "Public Footpath" then it gets a 1*.

  • Jtronmoore-PGOJtronmoore-PGO Posts: 1,581 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Id probably say yes to walking trails. They meet the criteria as long as they represent a trail still. No need for the names anymore. Believe that was covered in most recent ama. Exploration exercise, even social can probably fall under it. For bicycle trails it would be good for exercise. But is there pedestrian access would be the main issue

  • Vorxnyx-PGOVorxnyx-PGO Posts: 11 ✭✭

    Without seeing any examples I'd say they fit criteria in spirit, but it would be nice to see an example. In Germany the signs on the walking trails tend to have km to the next town - that might be a good physical spot to anchor it on if you have anything similar.

  • PORT2014-INGPORT2014-ING Posts: 88 ✭✭✭

    They are now eligible which previously the guidance said clearly they were not.

    The approach I take is to judge how well the nomination meets the category of "a great place for exercise" and is a "Hiking Trail" rather than just a footpath cut-through to the nearest shop to buy your Booze 'n fags.

    Our nominating experience suggests that people are still reviewing on the old criteria. We've had a named walking sign accepted and a numbered cycle national cycle route sign rejected. Trying a named cycle trail sign next and then a "Ramblers Association" plaque sponsoring a metal kissing gate in middle of nowhere-both previously rejected in the old regime but which clearly are on routes that meet the exercise criterion.

  • sogNinjaman-INGsogNinjaman-ING Posts: 3,313 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Fair enough - more things may now be eligeable. However, being eligable does not guarantee "automatic acceptance" as a lot of people seem to think. So a submission is "Eligeable" - fine. You now have to look at the Rejection page and assess the submission in light of this comment:

    "Nominations and edit submissions may be entirely rejected if it meets at least one of the following rejection criteria:"

    So, how does the sub rate against these? For "Public Footpath" markers and blue numbered cycle marker signs, both of which have 1000s of identical or near identical signs, I'm going to say they are "The object is mass-produced, generic, or not visually unique or interesting."

  • Kellerrys-INGKellerrys-ING Posts: 696 ✭✭✭✭✭

    https://wayfarer.nianticlabs.com/criteria#rejection

    One of the rejection criteria you are referring to is not

    "The object is mass-produced, generic, or not visually unique or interesting."

    The rejection criteria is

    "Does not meet eligibility criteria"

    Here's the whole quotation

    "Does not meet eligibility criteria

    Does not seem to be a great place of exploration, place for exercise, or place to be social. The object is mass-produced, generic, or not visually unique or interesting."

  • Theisman-INGTheisman-ING Posts: 1,001 ✭✭✭✭✭

    As @sogNinjaman-ING said, generic UK footpath, bridleway etc signs are totally generic mass produced and trash submissions, instant 1*

  • PORT2014-INGPORT2014-ING Posts: 88 ✭✭✭

    It's not the trail marker - it's the trail. If the trail promotes exercise then it's eligible so unless you have another good reason for rejection then you shouldn't 1*. Doesn't even matter if the trail has no name on the trail marker - if it's an established trail that encourages exercise it's eligible. An ingress mission made up of following markers along a trail is surely exactly what they want us to do this for. Consider the November 2020 AMA:

    The new criteria lists hiking trails and biking trails as eligible examples under a great place for exercise. Are there any additional requirements for these locations to be eligible (e.g. survey markers, trail signs or other man-made objects)? Do they need to be named trails or paths?

    • While this criteria is much more inclusive than before, there would still need to be some sort of visual indicator of the Wayspot. This is because you're dropping a pin on the map and since trails are long and linear, you'd want to direct players to a safe location somewhere along that trail that's easy to find and safe to access. This would apply to trail markers, survey markers, trail signs, etc. 

    Yes do reject the in town footpath sign that's nothing more than a shortcut to the next street but accept the cross country footpath signs to the next village and accept the named walking and cycling trail markers even if they are in town and happen to be near someone's house.

  • DerWelfe2205-PGODerWelfe2205-PGO Posts: 374 ✭✭✭✭
    • Has a name on (Not talking about the number, the name is on those smaller metal plates)
    • I created a streetview photosphere to prove location
    • Obviously permanent
    • The trail leads to important landmarks, museums etc.
    • There is only 6 of these in the entire region


    As long as these get rejected 90% of the time I'm not gonna stop being annoying about this topic :)

    @NianticGiffard Does this look like it's ineligible?

  • sogNinjaman-INGsogNinjaman-ING Posts: 3,313 ✭✭✭✭✭

    As Niantic have said, trails need something physical on the ground to "fix" the location of the POI. I'm not going to "Agree" to a photo of just a muddy pathy through some trees being a stop because "its a trail".

    As for a trail marker, on some Public Footpaths you see a "Public Footpath" marker disc every time the path crosses a hedgeline, there are 1000s and 1000s of identical, generic, mass produced "Public Footpath" markers across Britain. If one was looking for an example of a "mass produced, generic or not visually interesting" object, a "Public Footpath" marker disc would be a perfect example.

  • Xmacke7x-INGXmacke7x-ING Posts: 220 ✭✭✭✭

    I have submitted most of those biking path trail markers in the city I live in. They all look like the one in the post before this one. But I fear the all get rejected. I would not use an upgrade on them.


    Niantic have to find a way to communicate their rules better. If you could choose a categorie while nominating. The reviewer should see this categorie and Nantic should display the rules on this categorie. Otherwise those trail makrers still will be rejected.

  • Mernie9-INGMernie9-ING Posts: 42 ✭✭✭

    I've seen sidewalks along streets submitted as trails. Obviously they are not, but if you start allowing unmarked trails that will open things up to every dirt path, every sidewalk.

  • 0X00FF00-ING0X00FF00-ING Posts: 769 ✭✭✭✭✭

    This network of trails is a combination of bicycle and pedestrian pathways, along roads and sidewalks and through parks. Some of it IS just "sidewalks" through urban areas, but they at least have fairly consistent signage.

    https://waterfronttrail.org/

  • saarstahl-INGsaarstahl-ING Posts: 184 ✭✭✭
    edited December 2020

    There is a long debate about trail markers in the "general" section:

    https://community.wayfarer.nianticlabs.com/discussion/10418/trail-markers/p1

  • Deprez-PGODeprez-PGO Posts: 3 ✭✭

    Would these be acceptable? Cycling ans walking paths are, but there is a sign like this every 100m. I'd rate this as just a traffic sign, and reject it. What do you guys think?


  • TWVer-INGTWVer-ING Posts: 792 ✭✭✭✭✭

    How can we expect people to do quality reviews if they can't even tell the difference between a traffic sign and a trail marker.

    Let me try to explain it:

    • Street sign: A sign that has the name of the street on it. It tells you what street you are in. These are not eligible unless there is something special about them.
    • Traffic sign: A sign that tells you how to behave in traffic, like a stop sign or sign that tells you the speed limit. These are not eligible.
    • Directional sign: A sign that tells you what direction a location is. It points to nearby towns, highways, etc. The purpose of them is to point you to a destination in the most efficient way. These are not eligible unless there is something special about them.
    • Trail marker: A sign that guides you along a predefined trail, or marks the starting or endpoint of a trail. The purpose of them is not about the destination, but the journey. These are eligible.

    Your opinion being that there is many of them, does not magically change a trail marker into a traffic sign.

    So to answer your question: Yes, you should accept these, as they are trail markers.

  • Jtronmoore-PGOJtronmoore-PGO Posts: 1,581 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Cant use common sense with that other person. They have made up there mind to go against the criteria

Sign In or Register to comment.