Getting fed up. Trail markers not approved
RyGuy10189-PGO Posts: 100 ✭✭
These two nominations are perfectly eligible. I'm getting seriously annoyed that they aren't going through.
Anyone have thoughts.
They're visually unique. As they're with different numbers.
They have pedestrian access since it's an effing trail.
Mile/trail markers are eligible. I'm going to continue submitting them
Your descriptions, especially for the first one, are very lacking, so I would put more detail there.
Also, is the sign above the distance relevant to the trail, or is all the information needed on the smaller sign? If it’s all on the smaller sign, I’d focus on that for your main photo and take a photo like you have for the supporting.
You also need to be aware that reviewers may not be local, or even not from your country, so you need to explain how there is safe access in your supporting.
Your second one was “Not visually unique”, which rather than a 1 star on the first section means you got lots of low stars on the “Visually Unique” question.
Are there lots of other similar markers for the second trail in the area? Is it difficult to distinguish them? Make sure it’s clear they are different to ones that already exist, to the reviewers.
Those don't look like trail markers to me, but I'm in a different country. Here, those wouldn't be trail markers and wouldn't be accepted, but eveywhere's different.
Even for those that are acceptable here, it's taken me two years to figure out how to nominate them in a way that gets 100% guaranteed acceptance, and each nomination is a lot of hard work.
But everything I've learned can be summed up as "the reviewers are always right, so if you get a rejection, work out what you did wrong and fix it".
I can see why the first one would get rejected. The photo is dominated by the two larger generic signs, while the actual trail markers are at the top and bottom. I understand that ideally you would want both the top and bottom markers in the photo, but perhaps you could try just focusing on the lower marker for your main photo. I also think you could stand to improve your description a bit, making it similar to your second description. To be clear, I think this still should have been approved based on what I can see here, but I can at least understand why it wasn't.
The second one I don't see any real issues with. I mean you could give it a slightly more distinctive name by calling it "Proctor Creek Mile 0.91 Marker" to distinguish it from other mile markers, but I would certainly approve it under the current criteria. You could try resubmitting it, or you could try appealing it (for whenever appeals actually start to be reviewed).
I have a few trail markers waiting on appeal myself that I've been having trouble getting through. I think the first one might still be rejected even if you make the improvements suggested above, in which case you may just have to appeal and wait for that one as well.
Are they visible on streetview? I've had nominations rejected for various random criteria until I took a photosphere and made sure it was on streetview.
Howdy 🤠 Agent
I'm having some good success mapping out a trail system here in Arizona with another Player. So far we've only had one that needs to be Appealed. I've attached some screenshots below of my submissions. I typically copy/paste one of the previous submissions' descriptions and then update the specifics like information about where to locate the specific entry relative to its surroundings and the actual number of the mile marker. In my examples below, we have the mile markers on the east and west sides of the river with the odds being on the East side and the evens being on the West side, so it's more helpful to have the actual post number instead of the mile number, ie. [NR-18] or [NR-20] to differentiate them from their odd-numbered counterparts on the east side of the river, which still technically have the same mile number as their Western counterparts. More info is always better. There's nothing worse when reviewing nominations than having a trail or mile marker that just says "Trail Marker" without any additional flavor text.
When it comes to Supplemental Info, almost 100% of the time I start out by saying that a nomination is "easily accessible by foot and/or vehicle, etc." And then I go on to describe how to find the nomination in Google Maps, if there is an easy way. I try to be as detailed as possible using terms like North, East, South, West and if I run out of room, I submit the nomination and then I go back into Wayfarer and continue to add Supplemental Info because you can add up to 3,000 characters in Wayfarer even if it only lets you add like 500 in the app.
I hope this helps! Trailmarkers are a guaranteed accepted portal once you get that submission template down. Another thing you can do to boost your odds is install the Google StreetView app and submit a Photosphere along with your nomination. That way when they review it, they'll have StreetView data too substantiate the nomination and make it less likely to get denied by someone who simply can't find it like the one below that I had to appeal 👇👇
🙇♂️ Please reach out with any questions!
You know whats funny. Your post is exactly what I don't like about non-context rules.
Trail Markers = Ok
Memorial Benches = Not Ok unless famous
Yet, on a trail, not every country/state/city uses trail markers take a look at this extensive trail in my US state of Michigan
There are no trail markers. No mile signs. Yet along the path are numerous places where there is a circle and a couple of sponsored memorial benches to take a break at.
Yet, your submissions get accepted far easier, even though they are mass produced, and nothing to look at. Yet those little stop points with benches dont.
Yet purpose wise POI, they would satisfy exactly the same core criteria: exploring down the trail + promote exercise by travelling farther. Whats the difference between mile markers 1 mile apart along a trail, and bench stops 1 mile apart along the trail?
I'd even go farther and to stay places with benches along trail are better then your pole signs because they encourage another of the core criteria... gathering... for hikers/bikers to stop and gather and talk. While those pole signs dont.
I agree with you on the fact that benches ought to be eligible. I do give many benches 5*. They also promote people to gather. Sure they can be not visually different than the next one.
Memorial plaques are each unique and not mass produced.
But if the bench is a boring to look at bench, I'll give it 2* or 3*.
They're like unofficial mile markers
As an update, I got the second on resubmitted, and it finally got approved. And now there's a new gym in the area. So I'm happy. I resubmitted the first one, but I haven't pushed it through an upgrade yet. Since there's a new gym, I'm not going to worry much about it
Just to clarify.
I am not suggesting judging the benches or giving many benches 5*. I am suggesting that if benches are along a public trail like the one in photo, they functionally serve the same as Trail Markers that Niantic has deemed acceptible.
In fact, memorial benches placed along a hiking trail are better than Trail Markers, especially when you compare them to accepted photos @KingWinterGreen-ING posted,
1) Each Memorial Bench is more unique vs next then those pictures of Trail Markers that he posted where only # changes.
2) Niantic made trail markers eligible under the "Explore" and "Exercise" criteria that even though they are mass-produced they encourage the player to continue down the trail, exercising, to the next POI.... Functionally this would be a tie because benches spaced out along a trail would do the same thing.
3) Benches actually can also fit the 3rd criteria... a place to gather... as they give the hikers/trail explores a common rest space where they could talk to others on trail.
Since #2 is a tie IMO and 1&3 both favor the bench over those poles... I'd argue that along a trail, memorial benches are superior POIs of to trail markers.
So along a trail, memorial benches should be treated like Trail Markers and be acceptible.
I think the "Not Visually Unique" is a big clue. There are SO MANY of these little signs.
Many existing markers are named "Proctor Creek Trail Marker", which could stand for the whole set. Nominating another nearby is like nominating the slide when the playground is already a wayspot.
At some time, Krug said mile markers need to be farther apart than 0.1 mile (160 meters). I know there was a criteria reset - but still the logic influences reviewers. They don't see close-together trail mile markers as all unique.
It works against you, that these mile markers go to 2 digits after the decimal. The reviewer probably braces themselves to get mile 0.91, 0.92, 0.93...
When the reviewer is presented with nearby wayspots, only a certain distance radius is shown. It's not the same every time. But you could go for nominations that won't show other trail markers to the reviewer. If they see tons already there, they're more likely to say the new one is not visually unique. (I know I've seen estimates of the usual duplicate radius, but I cant' remember how far.)
I named the titles "open dawn to dusk mile marker" and "slippery when wet mile marker" and etc. a variety of names but people kept rejecting them.
The many memorial bench nominations im referring to that I 5* are at parks or trails. Or areas that have no nominations that I can see
Those are definitely eligible, but they look blurry. Have you tried centering the photo around just one of the signs instead of both? My pictures may not look very unique, but the quality is mostly consistent and that's probably why they continue getting approved. Shown below, here's two more just since I posted here last. Sometimes I'll use Instagram and sometimes I'll turn on the grid on my camera or use pro mode to make sure I'm getting a straight shot and that it's centered correctly. Sometimes I'll take multiple shots and try to improve it each time. If I'm taking a photo I know I'm going to use for Wayfarer, I'll always change my aspect ratio to 1:1 to make sure it's a perfect square shot each time. It's just less confusing that way and usually easier to center and focus properly.
We have a handful of these Sun Circle Trail markers too and they're super tiny. Whenever someone gets one approved, they usually get really close to the sign and get it into focus or they take a picture of the actual structure they marker is found on like the Sun Circle Awning shown below which is this big metal structure meant for catching falling rocks from trains so they don't hit bikers and people on the trail... but the City of Peoria decided to slap a Sun Circle Trail emblem on there so... bada bing bada boom - Sun Circle Awning. If a sign seems boring or not visually unique, try using a filter to make the colors pop. See how Sun Circle Trail Marker looks way more vibrant than the other two? Or how the rust on Sun Circle Awning looks super red and bright? Clarendon filter. It's not a sin to touch up your photos before you **** them off.
So the 'Slippery When Wet'-sign isn't eligible because it's a mass-produced street sign and that's probably what's confusing people and getting your nominations sniped down. I wouldn't include it as the subject of the photo or the nomination at all. This should be the subject of your photo (shown below), taken from an angle that still shows the information but looks nice and sharp. Be sure to focus the shot and make sure there isn't any unflattering glare or flare. If you feel comfortable using a filter, I like to use 'Vivid' or 'Clarendon' and crank the brightness all the way up to make reds, greens and blues really pop. For your descriptions, tell us what Proctor Greenway is for those of us who don't live nearby and aren't familiar.
Here we go again....
No pedestrian access? Are these reviewers blind? Clearly its a trail. Oh, what's that? It's a crosswalk in the photo
And again trail mile markers are eligible
As others said to you many times in this thread, you need to focus your main photo only on trail marker. The first thing to see on your new nomination is a big "STOP" sign, and trail marker is a small thing on your photo, that is easy to miss for reviewers that will see "STOP" and think you nominated a street sign and you just try to name it as a mile marker to get it accepted.
So make main photo much closer to trail marker (so STOP sign won't be visible on main photo), and make supporting photo in landscape mode and a bit more away from sign to show your nomiation and more area near it, to let reviewers know it does have safe pedestrian access (streetview is from 2019 in your area, and trail markers aren't visible on them, so reviewers need a good photo to be sure of location and safe pedestrian access).
Here is some photo examples of what I just mentioned:
On main photo I cropped out your trail marker to show you how much more visible it is for reviewers if photo is done much closer to it and you try to avoid others signs on photo. Focus your main photo just on this trail marker (like my cropped photo is focused on it), it should help a lot.
My example of supporting photo is only to show you how much more you can show in landscape photo - I added some parts of your photos as extra visible space to show how much more you can show with landscape photo - it would show a lot more area near your nomination :)
And please remember that not all areas in your country might have the same type of trail markers, so if people don't see trail marker as main focus of your photo, they might miss it as they might think all signs on this pole are street signs.
Also I want to mention - I can't see in any place of your text that you mentioned it's a trail/path marker that you're nominating.
Words you used (Mile markers) reminds me more for generic street signs that mention what mile of the road you're at, not something that will remind me for trail marker. And I think it might be the same for many reviewers - especially if your trail marker isn't the main focus of your photo - they get confused what you're nominating.
Mention anywhere in your text what you're nominating (a trail marker), as your title or description don't say anything for your nomination (description isn't mentioning that you're nominating a trail marker, you just mentioned name of road here). It might help a lot to get it accepted.
And remeber, that trail makrers are often difficult to get accepted, but making as best nomination as you can (better photos and text) will give it much bigger chance of being accepted.
I hope you will get it accepted next time :)
My appeal was accepted. So this is acceptable via Niantic standards
So the nomination in this thread is eligible to you naysayers
First, just because an appeal is accepted or denied doesn't make it a 100% standard. We have already seen evidence of people submitting virtually the same thing (Such as 2 trail markers) on appeal and 1 being accepted and 1 not. When humans are involved expecting 100% accuracy is not likely.
Second, you may have just got unlucky/lucky. On your stop sign, you got unlucky in that reviewers missed seeing the trail sign under the sign, and you got lucky that that the niantic employee saw it. What happens if you appeal the stop sign and it gets denied?
Third, a stop sign catches the eye more than a turn-bend sign. Color and it's meaning, and how we have been trained, stop sign simply dominates what people see when turn sign does.
Most importantly, you posted in nomination improvement and people gave you suggestion on how to make your picture/nomination better. If you don't want to improve it because you think its "Good enough" and should be accepted as is... then post in criteria clarifications or general and say that. Don't waste people's time trying to give you suggestions to improve if what you really want is your as-is accepted.
I’m going to make a defense of “Niantic approved this, therefore it is eligible.” That is a reasonable conclusion. It is reasonable to say, ‘Niantic hired and trained their own staff to understand their own criteria. I do not believe that the reviewers who saw my submission acted in good faith, so I requested unbiased feedback on my nomination from outside the community: Niantic themselves. They concluded it is eligible, therefore this is the standard.’ In fact, I find the opposite unreasonable: ‘Niantic reviewed my nomination according to their guidelines, and they approved it even though it may not meet criteria.’ That makes no sense.
Do I expect consistency from Niantic appeals? I do not. Do I expect more submissions that are named for, and show, street signs? Yes I do. And I don’t find it unreasonable.
It still just means that they found this particular nomination eligible and each nomination should be judged individually.