I mean, that first one is from 2017, fron what has been worked out since wayfarer, 2 stars are rejections, 3 star is maybe, 4 star is accept. I always treat 3 star as, essentially, a skip review
This is a trail marker for the Saxon Shore Way. Rejected about 5 times. Yet I’ve had another one in a different location accepted. These are the newer markers that are replacing the older thicker metal trail signs. The older thicker trail markers are always readily accepted first time. It’s not a street sign nor is it a generic footpath sign.
WHY would you reject a trailmarker, that is on a walking trail? because it looks generic? it isnt! There are actual people out there that print these things one by one, with individual Text. AND EVEN IF, these trailmarkers are just totally uninteresting - but they get you OUTSIDE, get you FRESH AIR, prevents your body from rotting in your tv-chair at your homespot.
Rejecting a trail marker is nothing short if ignorance and self-denial. I invite everyone to get outside with me, and play ingress or pokemon on a wandering trail, together with alot of friends.
Dont talk to me about portal quality - if you go in the woods, then you wont expect shiny statues. You expect that there are things made out of wood, that give you information about the area, the sorts of wood that are growing there, the animals in the forest, AND of course where the way there leads to.
If you are rejecting these, you just take away the possibilty for alot of players that have no parks where they live.
EVERY pokemon go player that sits in the car, drives 30km to go to a dense-pokestop Park is helping to pollute the air. This isnt what the creators of Niantic Games envision - you shouldnt drive around playing the games anyway. Get outside, find a walking trail nearby and try to play a Niantic game, when there are no wayspots. You might dont want to go there again.
Again, you are robbing the community of valid wayspots. You wouldnt want that with your precious Upgraded Submissions.
Oh I do trust me. Had a trail marker rejected about 17 times. I’ve not done it recently but I don’t care. Just keep doing it lol 😂 reviewers are ridiculous. Had a cafe rejected yesterday for being a fake nomination and picture was upside down. No it wasn’t.
I've had this rejected 4 times, its I for its 5th now, the first time was for mismatched location, second and third time were not meeting meeting criteria, the 4th time was prp and generic business (yeah, work those ones out). Hoping this time, with the criteria refresh and a photosphere, there can be no chance of it failing
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.
In the same sense, bike trails are similar but if you have a signboard for a bike lane (along with say a highway or road), that’s not as interesting/unique as compared to a signboard for a bike trail that takes players through a new route.
This comment gives so much ammo to people who just want to reject all of them. What does this mean? Is it enough that you can identify which trail they belong to, like a trail name or pictogram? And a generic one is like a traffic sign for a bike lane?
Look at the National cycleway markers and try telling us they aren’t generic 😂 it’s just a band round a post with a number on it telling which route it is
Thanks for a response but this does need more clarification.
This a a route that takes walkers and cyclist into historic towns and villages. But has blue signs with a bike on it and a number, the signs have directions on which way to go. It’s a named trail north Norfolk cycleway is the name of the route.
These routes promote exploration, Exercise and being social while exploring them with friends. They show history is a visual way as you go into the historical towns and villages.
So from this the marker itself has to be the interesting point not the location or the area? This goes back to another debate about if you find a natural feature that’s got a sign you need to submit the sign not the feature. It makes no sense. We want nice looking waypoints or waypoints that give us information from just the pictures.
Any yet it still opens up more questions than answers.
Ok so we can only accept bike trails that are down dirt tracks?
what about small villages that only have generic trail markers?
Are there instances when the generic rule can be skipped?
different countries have different markers so are generic to the world some to the country this can cause more issues. How do we get around this?
I would be happy to have an open conversation with @NianticGiffard about this as the community needs to get more understanding of what Niantic means when it comes to Explore Exercise Social.
To paraphrase these two messages: Paths and trails are innately interesting. Their markers are valid Wayspots for the segments they bracket. This holds for hiking and biking trails.
Bike lanes that match existing roads need unique signage, not just another outline of a bicycle or the words Bike Lane over and over.
Networks are a whole other issue, which was not touched upon.
Unbelievable. How can anyone still claim these markers should be rejected after Giffards second comment?
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.
He literally says that any marker on a hiking trail is acceptable. It doesn't matter how (generic) it looks.
In the same sense, bike trails are similar but if you have a signboard for a bike lane (along with say a highway or road), that’s not as interesting/unique as compared to a signboard for a bike trail that takes players through a new route.
Here he makes a difference between a signboard for a bike lane and a bike trail. A signboard for a bike lane just has a picture of a bike on it, sometimes mentioning the text "bike lane". That is not a trail. But predefined routes (trails) that have signage that differentiate it from signage for other routes, those are great candidates.
Why would it matter whether a trail is part of a network or not? Niantic have never made that distinction. It's like saying that we should threat trails in Europe differently than trails in America. Niantic have never suggested that, so there is no reason for us to think that.
Orr how about this. Stop playing 21 questions with the moderators when they give you clarifications. Seems to me biking lane routes are a no and bike trails not attached to a road are a yes. If it is visually unique and distinguishable its fine.
so glad i don’t live near anyone in these forums because I can easily get trail markers accepted where I’m from because the reviewers arent rejection happy
I wasn’t intending to throw networks under the bus! I just found that @NianticGiffard used phrasing that seemed obtuse, such that when spread over multiple posts with those of others in between seemed to lose coherent meaning.
I suppose I should have said this: I wish for a direct, coherent statement that covers all the bases, rather than falling back on not-quite-adequately-defined words and phrases like ‘generic ones’ or ‘not as interesting/unique’.
Comments
Keep trying imo they area all acceptable waypoints. They point a directions a walker or runner should go which promotes exploration and exercise.
I agree. I was just looking for something that mentioned 2* ratings and it took ages to be approved. I do wish image comments didn’t need approval.
Ingress forums let images go on just fine.
I posted a large post yesterday with images so the waiting has started haha
Oops 🙊 another. This one is only a few months old lol. Along the canal. Encourages exercise. 🚴
NICE. keep them coming. Encourages exercise and promotes exploration with friends which is also being social so ticks all 3 boxes.
I mean, that first one is from 2017, fron what has been worked out since wayfarer, 2 stars are rejections, 3 star is maybe, 4 star is accept. I always treat 3 star as, essentially, a skip review
These are the same thing.
This is a trail marker for the Saxon Shore Way. Rejected about 5 times. Yet I’ve had another one in a different location accepted. These are the newer markers that are replacing the older thicker metal trail signs. The older thicker trail markers are always readily accepted first time. It’s not a street sign nor is it a generic footpath sign.
WHY would you reject a trailmarker, that is on a walking trail? because it looks generic? it isnt! There are actual people out there that print these things one by one, with individual Text. AND EVEN IF, these trailmarkers are just totally uninteresting - but they get you OUTSIDE, get you FRESH AIR, prevents your body from rotting in your tv-chair at your homespot.
Rejecting a trail marker is nothing short if ignorance and self-denial. I invite everyone to get outside with me, and play ingress or pokemon on a wandering trail, together with alot of friends.
Dont talk to me about portal quality - if you go in the woods, then you wont expect shiny statues. You expect that there are things made out of wood, that give you information about the area, the sorts of wood that are growing there, the animals in the forest, AND of course where the way there leads to.
If you are rejecting these, you just take away the possibilty for alot of players that have no parks where they live.
EVERY pokemon go player that sits in the car, drives 30km to go to a dense-pokestop Park is helping to pollute the air. This isnt what the creators of Niantic Games envision - you shouldnt drive around playing the games anyway. Get outside, find a walking trail nearby and try to play a Niantic game, when there are no wayspots. You might dont want to go there again.
Again, you are robbing the community of valid wayspots. You wouldnt want that with your precious Upgraded Submissions.
Oh I do trust me. Had a trail marker rejected about 17 times. I’ve not done it recently but I don’t care. Just keep doing it lol 😂 reviewers are ridiculous. Had a cafe rejected yesterday for being a fake nomination and picture was upside down. No it wasn’t.
I've had this rejected 4 times, its I for its 5th now, the first time was for mismatched location, second and third time were not meeting meeting criteria, the 4th time was prp and generic business (yeah, work those ones out). Hoping this time, with the criteria refresh and a photosphere, there can be no chance of it failing
Hi everyone, thanks for the lively discussion on the thread.
To clarify, cycling route markers can be eligible as long as they are visually unique and distinguishable. Generic ones should be rejected.
How do we determine what's generic?
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.
In the same sense, bike trails are similar but if you have a signboard for a bike lane (along with say a highway or road), that’s not as interesting/unique as compared to a signboard for a bike trail that takes players through a new route.
This comment gives so much ammo to people who just want to reject all of them. What does this mean? Is it enough that you can identify which trail they belong to, like a trail name or pictogram? And a generic one is like a traffic sign for a bike lane?
Look at the National cycleway markers and try telling us they aren’t generic 😂 it’s just a band round a post with a number on it telling which route it is
Yeah, just ignore the follow-up comment...
Thanks for a response but this does need more clarification.
This a a route that takes walkers and cyclist into historic towns and villages. But has blue signs with a bike on it and a number, the signs have directions on which way to go. It’s a named trail north Norfolk cycleway is the name of the route.
These routes promote exploration, Exercise and being social while exploring them with friends. They show history is a visual way as you go into the historical towns and villages.
So from this the marker itself has to be the interesting point not the location or the area? This goes back to another debate about if you find a natural feature that’s got a sign you need to submit the sign not the feature. It makes no sense. We want nice looking waypoints or waypoints that give us information from just the pictures.
We’ve only been waiting for a clarification like this since novemeber 2020 when the last ama came out 😂
Any yet it still opens up more questions than answers.
Ok so we can only accept bike trails that are down dirt tracks?
what about small villages that only have generic trail markers?
Are there instances when the generic rule can be skipped?
different countries have different markers so are generic to the world some to the country this can cause more issues. How do we get around this?
I would be happy to have an open conversation with @NianticGiffard about this as the community needs to get more understanding of what Niantic means when it comes to Explore Exercise Social.
Thanks for confirming. Sounds like these markers are a nice solid 1*
This thread can be closed now @NianticGiffard , we have our answer to 1* these.
The conversation with Niantic is far from over with regards to these markers or any markers.
Just because Niantic provide a resolution that you didn’t want, doesn’t mean it’s incorrect.
You wanted a Niantic response. You got one (well two actually). Thread serves no further purpose.
The reason I see this as unfinished is because I opens up more questions than answers.
There is such a thing as being too terse.
To paraphrase these two messages: Paths and trails are innately interesting. Their markers are valid Wayspots for the segments they bracket. This holds for hiking and biking trails.
Bike lanes that match existing roads need unique signage, not just another outline of a bicycle or the words Bike Lane over and over.
Networks are a whole other issue, which was not touched upon.
Unbelievable. How can anyone still claim these markers should be rejected after Giffards second comment?
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.
He literally says that any marker on a hiking trail is acceptable. It doesn't matter how (generic) it looks.
In the same sense, bike trails are similar but if you have a signboard for a bike lane (along with say a highway or road), that’s not as interesting/unique as compared to a signboard for a bike trail that takes players through a new route.
Here he makes a difference between a signboard for a bike lane and a bike trail. A signboard for a bike lane just has a picture of a bike on it, sometimes mentioning the text "bike lane". That is not a trail. But predefined routes (trails) that have signage that differentiate it from signage for other routes, those are great candidates.
Why would it matter whether a trail is part of a network or not? Niantic have never made that distinction. It's like saying that we should threat trails in Europe differently than trails in America. Niantic have never suggested that, so there is no reason for us to think that.
Orr how about this. Stop playing 21 questions with the moderators when they give you clarifications. Seems to me biking lane routes are a no and bike trails not attached to a road are a yes. If it is visually unique and distinguishable its fine.
so glad i don’t live near anyone in these forums because I can easily get trail markers accepted where I’m from because the reviewers arent rejection happy
This jumps back to my post saying it’s opened up more questions than answered.
That is exactly as I read it
I wasn’t intending to throw networks under the bus! I just found that @NianticGiffard used phrasing that seemed obtuse, such that when spread over multiple posts with those of others in between seemed to lose coherent meaning.
I suppose I should have said this: I wish for a direct, coherent statement that covers all the bases, rather than falling back on not-quite-adequately-defined words and phrases like ‘generic ones’ or ‘not as interesting/unique’.