It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.
Sign In with Ingress Sign In with Pokémon GO
Mugas are mass produced, do you accept them?
Walking and hiking trail markers are mass produced and not very appealing do you accept them?
These encourage exploration and exercise, thats 2 of the big 3, why should 1 and 4 be rejected when they do 2/3 of what niantic want for their waypoints to do and you are choosing to take a rejection criteria to the letter for this but ignori g it for others
Once again people are trying to compare apples with oranges, or trying to apply the criteria from one type of nomination to something completely different.
If a MUGA is mass produced, if we follow this argument to it's logical conclusion then every Football pitch, tennis court, playground area and "TFL style map and info" marker board should be rejected as "mass produced", as well as this providing yet another valid rejection reason for public footpath markers, postboxes and roadsigns.
Well yes, they would be, and you're saying it's comparing apples and oranges, but then, why are you choosing to ignore the mass produced of what you listed, the lack of visual uniqueness for walking and hiking trails etc. But choosing to do it for the ncn, which was made to encourage exercise and exploration? So kf you're wanting to reject the ncn, then by your own reasoning, you may as well reject everything you listed because they will also be generic, or mass produced, or not visually unique.
Qnd ill tell you one thing, there's more mugas in a 10km radius from me than there are ncn markers, so how can you argue that the thing with less is generic and mass produced but the thing that there's more of is fine?
There is a way to settle this (assuming he's OK to answer)
@NianticGiffard based on the 4 pictures, with the website for them saying that the national cycle network is about exercising and exploration, but that some people believe they are mass produced, would you personally accept any of them?
So you are saying that your favorite line from the criteria, The object is mass-produced, generic, or not visually unique or interesting, should not be applied to all candidates?
Oh my God, you are right. It is listed under Does not meet eligibility criteria. That must mean that it only applies to nominations that do not meet eligibility criteria.
And since these NCN markers have been confirmed to be acceptable, that must mean that line doesn't apply to them. 😲
The numbering sequence works in a similar way to roads. Single digits are the main routes, double digits are routes off the main route etc.
Sustrans even defines them as routes. Whilst part of the route may be along one or multiple trails the numbering itself does not represent a trail.
Some NCN markers, those with Trail Names on them, have been confirmed as acceptable by Niantic. Numbered only markers - no.
This is honestly giving me a headache.
As wayfarers, we always seem to complain when Niantic won't clarify something. This is one of the fairly uncommon instances where they have actually issued a clarification. And yet here we have people still bickering over it.
I get that some people don't like these kinds of route markers, including the ones which have been deemed to be eligible. I made no secret of the fact that I wasn't a fan of them on the other thread. That being said, I respect Giffard's clarification, and if markers fit within the eligible section of that clarification, then I will still submit/approve them, because at the end of the day simply not liking them is not a valid reason for rejecting them. I don't like rugby either, but I wouldn't dream of rejecting a rugby pitch, as it's also been deemed to be an eligible nomination according to the guidelines we have.
If a Niantic representative says they're eligible, and the database is owned by Niantic, then give them what they want 🤷♂️ if people want to attempt to get the clarification rescinded, then fair enough and I wish you luck, but until then, it stands and we should abide by it (for better or for worse).
Wrong again. Trail names are no longer a requirement since the 3.1 criteria update.
From 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?
From the previous thread on NCN markers (this was posted in this one earlier):
Let me add to what I've already said, by the term "Generic signs" means regular mass-produced signs. Trail signs will be on the trail/hiking area or they may contain trail names with the direction sign or with trail numbers
From RobWaudby's examples made on 11th September, "Acceptable" and "not sure on these" are correct to be acceptable.
And the last picture under "Acceptable" and the picture under "not sure on these" both only have a number, and no trail name. Yet they are declared acceptable. There's even pictures on there that don't even have a trail number. The 9th picture under acceptable are only triangles with a bike and a hiker.
If it marks a trail, than it is an acceptable trail marker.
I have a question.
If Sustrans have to comply with the The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 legislation for all signs on the public highway and for consistency they advise using the same format along the route
Which includes the colour of the signs and images to use for people, horses, bicycles and the route number
At what point do these signs differ from the example photo under "Does not meet eligibility criteria on the rejection" criteria page https://wayfarer.nianticlabs.com/new/criteria/rejection
This information was mentioned by me in the other thread:
Giffard made the clarification after I posted that info. Therefore, despite what we may think about them, they are apparently OK if they're for a trail or cycle route.
The moment they start marking a trail. In that photo, the moment those numbers 6 and 61 are on it.
It is not it looks like a street sign, reject. It is, it marks a trail, accept.
Except that the actual website for the network outright says it'd for walking and cycling to get people out exploring (and exercising) so literally the exact opposite of a motorway, but the exact same as any hiking or walking trail. Seriously, this idea that the ncn is basically a motorway for bikes is the most made up, backwards mental gymnastics I've ever seen
........... what? Did you see the list that giffard said are OK? There was clearly just numbered signs on them and he said that's fine, you're trying to bring back the named trails criteria, but the requirement for something to be named was taken away months ago
I have a trail near me, the Thomas muir trail, thst literally only uses the standard street sign as its markers, by you're logic, that isn't a trail, it is in fact a motorway for walkers because it happens to use a standard street sign rather than a post with a sticker on it
I’ll get some popcorn ready as we seem determined to go round these arguments again.
The reason we have wayfarers is that we have to make judgement calls.
There are a few straight situations that are not allowed.
However there is a raft of items that may be acceptable and on those we need to judge how strongly or weakly it meets the criteria.
Walking/biking routes are eligible for consideration as they promote exercise.
the straight rejection criteria are mainly concerned with abuse and safety.
The one that requires judgement is
1) Does not seem to be a great place of exploration, place for exercise, or place to be social.
2) The object is mass-produced, generic, or not visually unique or interesting.
What isn’t clear from the wording is if you are meant to cover both 1 and 2.
Obviously they meet sentence 1 which is why they are eligible in the first place. Should that be enough?
whether or not something is interesting is where judgement comes in. When reviewing I have to put aside personal prejudice and try and take the view would this be interesting or useful to someone.
I also consider what it shows. Would I come to a different view in a different setting. Is there a difference to its placement on a mountain track make it different from along an urban river, or path. My view is it’s the same information doing the same job of helping someone get exercise.
Many of the signs have location specific information 1 mile to X, 9 miles to Y. These are unique to that location.
We need to follow guidance from Niantic in our decisions.
I don’t think there is much value in people forming battles lines with hard and fast views and repeatedly raking over the arguments. Let’s move on.
Very interesting! I see that there are a few other comments around the same lines.
Personally I disagree with the last one on the acceptable list and the one not sure list but here we are (until NIA change their minds as they usually do)
I think they are going to struggle and become the new postbox as not everyone reads this forum and they have certainly split opinion here.
I can't wait to see the flood of posts about "useless reviewers rejected my ncn marker"
Yeah the metal ones struggle. I've had some success with the metal national trail signs with the acorns on them.
Every NCN route is different. It's a route, not a physical pathway.
Some NCN routes are simply signposts along existing roads. Nothing about them encourages anything. Except it encourages me to avoid that route if I'm cycling because it will be along narrow, steep, twisty, poorly-surfaced country roads with dangerous blind bends.
Some are along purpose-built greenways that are exactly intended to encourage exercise and exploration. I see people walking and cycling on them just for the sake of it. They go all along, turn round and go back. But that's the greenway and its associated signage, maps etc that's eligible. Whether any NCN signs associated with such a greenway are also eligible will surely be on a case by case basis.
"Activist" reviewers trying to enforce their own guidelines are always going to be a thing, we're just going to have this thread occur over and over again until appeals come through and let people bypass them or they find something else to target.
I think one of the fundamental issues with this argument is that people can't make a distinction between "Does this meet criteria" and "Should this example be an appropriate waypoint". I think that we can all agree that NCN markers meet criteria as spelled out by NIA clarification but this does not mean that ALL NCN signs/markers should be a poi in the LightShip database. Each has to be reviewed on it's own merits so location and context always need to be evaluated. As a reviewer the POI is voted on taking into consideration the criteria and the location and context, and possibly more importantly before (as a submitter) the specific example is nominated.
A similar argument has been had for trail disks/blazes many many time and the argument that seems to win is that in rural locations there are not many things to submit so a long distance trail could be one of those things that encourages people to get out into the rural locations and explore the countryside. This seems to really buy into NIAs ideology of exploration. So that said, if one of these markers is located on a residential street or a busy street/highway and is acting as a pointer to where the trail/route is located then that isn't really encouraging you to go and explore the trail as you are already there and able to interact with the in game features. If however the trail component is out of the residential area or busy road, then having that POI would encourage you to actually go and explore.
Edit* Queue all the Disagrees from people that want every NCN sign, sticker or hint of a trail and can't make the distinction between what meets criteria and what should be a POI 🙌
Damn, my whole long comment vanished :(
Something starting with;
I think one of the fundamental issues with this argument is that people can't make a distinction between "Does this meet criteria" and "Should this example be…”
Yay it came back lol 🤯🙃🤦♂️
Well said. While there will always be an amount of conscious or subconscious bias by a person on their feelings towards a POI they are reviewing, they should be voting based on Niantics views and not their own.
While it would be nice if every case was clear cut, it's easy to see that when stuff is left open to interpretation many vote with their own feelings than Niantics own rules.
The fact most reviewers either;
1) Do not know the rules
2) Do not understand the rules
3) Have not kept up with the changes in rules
3) Find them so complicated or not straight forward
that they vote incorrectly or agree to downvote everything in local groups to get upgrades faster to get their own stuff approved faster
There is no distinction between what meets the criteria and what should be a Wayspot. That's the point of the criteria, to indicate what can be a Wayspot. You act like the rules the reviewers make up are more important than the rules layed out by Niantic. It doesn't matter "what argument seems to win". All that matters are the criteria.
What you fail to understand is, that a Wayspot must meet the criteria, for people that are not playing a Niantic game. Otherwise any rock or tree in the middle of nowhere could be a Wayspot. Because when they become a Wayspot, players will be attracted to it, no matter what it is. If that were the case, Niantic could just go the Jurassic World Alive route, and randomly place Wayspots across the map.
The reason NCN markers are all acceptable, is because they all fulfill the goals of promoting exercise and exploration, no matter where they are located. If a cyclist is to follow an NCN trail, that happens to (partially) go through a city, then all those markers help them explore and exercise. That's why they meet criteria. That's why the vast majority of them should be accepted.
Many NCN markers are merely road signs for cyclists. Not all, but many. They are on posts by the sides of roads with no footpaths and are intended to inform cyclists that the NCN route follows that particular road. Because NCN routes prefer lesser-used roads with less traffic, this typically means they are actually far worse for cycling on. They don't encourage anything at all. They merely inform you that if you should wish to cycle from London to Birmingham, then you might find this route quieter. It will also be steeper, slower, with many more tight bends, and with a worse road surface. Your journey will be a lot slower and more uncomfortable and harder work.
It will also be steeper, slower, with many more tight bends, and with a worse road surface. Your journey will be a lot slower and more uncomfortable and harder work.
That's what's called exercise.
You keep saying that the ncn markers are road signs for cyclists, but we're exactly are you getting this from? The network itself says its for exercise and exploring, nothing says its just "road signs for cyclists". Its almost like you're making up a reason to reject rather than looking at facts
@Gazzas89-PGO for info -Got this one approved recently.
The main focus is the NCN route with the distinctive top. A good stretch of urban exercise along the Clyde. It keeps people on this 500+ mile route (plenty explore) on track and bit by bit I might get to complete it. Exploring and exercise through hills and cities.
By contrast the part that is in green is simply directing to local amenities and using the NCN post. I would not consider that sign if it was on its own as suitable, but the fact that it is alongside an official NCN marker does not invalidate it.