It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.
Sign In with Ingress Sign In with Pokémon GO
This was accepted after being reviewed directly by Niantic
I do agree that being in the middle of the city could maybe take away from it, as that takes the exploration away, and if its a sign pointing to the ncn trail, rather than being in the trail itself, then yeah, thats also reject, but if its on the trail and in a suburban or rural area, easy accept
I would have accepted that even without the top
Unfortunetly the ones near me font have that top, though some have an emblem for the Forth and Clyde Canal on the top jnatead, I got 2 of those accepted but thats cause, again, I was gling for the emblem rather than the ncn route
Most NCN fail. This is because of a number of reasons.
* All the signs are road signs, with only a number differentiating them from other routes. So reviewers see them as generic and mass produced, (which are reject criteria)
* They are everywhere, so a lot of reviewers see them as uninteresting (which is a reject criteria).
* Most NCN are routes. NCN do have trails that guide cyclist along an interesting route. The numbers ones do not and are more part of the transit infrastructure. Again, reviewers see this as uninteresting.
* A lot of NCN numbered routes are on roads, some without pavements, especially in the countryside, so again some reviewers find this uncomfortable when it comes to safety.
I think it is you who don't understand.....all POIs need to meet criteria (I don't think I said different "I think that we can all agree that NCN markers meet criteria as spelled out by NIA") but not all nominations that do meet criteria can become POIs for many reasons. You have conflicting arguments in your rebuttal to my previous comment "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." vs "That's why the vast majority of them should be accepted." so what happened to the ones that meet criteria that fall into the set that are outside the vast majority??
I agree with you that some NCN markers should be POIs in game to promote exercise and get people out exploring, but like you say, not ALL based on things like location, pedestrian access etc. etc.
Pretty much everything you said is wrong there, like genuinely, I think only that last one was right
They arent everywhere, I know several places that don't have any, I have one route near my house in one direction but if I walked in in the other direction away from the route it would take me nearly an hour to walk to another ncn marker, and it's the same route.
They arent road signs, pretty certain the canal that is the route the ncn near me follows isn't a road, if it is, you're welcome to drive a car on it, don't think it will go well
That numbered one's don't go along interesting routed is the worst one though, like genuinely i think that's the worst take I've ever seen, the 2 numbered routes I know of in Glasgow take you along the forth and Clyde Canal, then the other os along the river Kelvin, why arent they interesting?
At the end of the day, people like you who create this false narrative that the ncn is "basically a road for cyclists" are the issue, you ignore what the actual ncn website says and what the ncn promotes, the ncn website outright states its for walking and cycling to get out and explore, that alone shoots down the road for cyclists argument and @NianticGiffard, after reading all the "cons" people could come up with, still said they qre fine, meaning he read the "there's loads of them" argument and still says they are good to be in the database
The signs are the same design as road signs. The only difference is that they are blue. Same material, same design, same font which is called Transport Medium.
The network goes to virtually every town or city. Most town have 2 or 3 routes. It's massive! Yes, it doesn't go everywhere, but close enough. About 60% the length of the rail network.
The material that a sign is made of is irrelevant.
What matters is the content of the sign.
Its absolutely brilliant for exploration that there is an extensive network. You can use these to explore so many places.
Please familiarise yourself with the goals of sustrans to get people out on bike or foot.
Like all trails / routes there are highs and lows. Just as seeing ( or not) another view of moorland in drizzly rain can quickly become uninteresting to some, so by contrast another route along a suburban towpath long at industrial archaeology can be fascinating. The key is to put your own bias to one side whilst reviewing and consider the content and location against the criteria.
Ok, and? What does it matter if the sign is made of metal, wood, plastic or gold? A trail marker is a trail marker, I refer you to a previous comment of mine where I posted a trail marker, the John muir trail, that the markers are all street signs, whether they be on the road or on the trail next to the canal, are you saying that because it's made of metal and has the same font it's not allowed? That's such a weak excuse to reject its actually insulting to proper reviewers.
So what if there's a lot in the UK? You being up the railway, every station on the railways are allowed, should we actually be rejecting those as being too many cause theirs more than one in most cities and lots around the country?
And I notice at no point do you actually try to argue against the most important factor, the national cycle network is for EXERCISE and EXPLORATION by the networks own words, and that Giffard heard all the lame excuses fo reject before and still decided that they would be a great addition
It looks like you are only talking about Eligibility criteria, while I am talking about all criteria. My first statement only talks about the Eligibility criteria, while my second talks about all criteria. They don't conflict.
When Niantic declares something acceptable, it means it meets at least 1 Eligibility criteria, it meets the Acceptance criteria "Must meet at least one of the three eligibility criteria". And it doesn't meet the Rejection criteria "Does not meet eligibility criteria". But we still need to check for the Acceptance criteria "Must be a permanent physical, tangible, and identifiable place or object, or object that placemarks an area", "Must be safe and publicly accessible by pedestrians (indoor or outdoor)" and "Must contain accurate information in the title, description, and photo", and the Rejection Criteria "Ineligible location, place, or object" and all the others underneath it.
You cannot argue that a (NCN) trail marker does not meet "Must be a permanent physical, tangible, and identifiable place or object, or object that placemarks an area". It is also very rare for a (NCN) trail marker to not meet the criteria "Must be safe and publicly accessible by pedestrians (indoor or outdoor)". It is also very rare for a (NCN) trail marker to meet the criteria "Ineligible location, place, or object". And all the other criteria are about the nominator doing something wrong while nominating. That is why the vast majority should be accepted. But there can be rare occasions where a (NCN) trail marker is placed at an ineligible location. Those fall outside of the vast majority.
Reviewing Wayspot nominations involves your good judgement. There is no single set of rules or person who can tell a community in black and white what places are important where others are not. That's why there will always be some 'grey area' in our collective goal to map the most interesting local places. What really influences reviews is how content is presented to convince reviewers that a nomination supports Niantic's mission and follows the rules around abuse, accuracy, and intent.
The object is mass-produced, generic, or not visually unique or interesting.
You have a problem here. That section is for nominations that specifically don't meet eligibility criteria (the header for the section is literally titled "Does not meet eligibility criteria"). Whether you like it or not (and I know you clearly don't like it), Niantic has already clarified that these do meet both their eligibility criteria and their acceptance criteria. Something shouldn't be rejected for not meeting eligibility criteria when it has already been stated that it does meet eligibility criteria. Niantic themselves are approving them, which clearly shows they want them in the database. I agree that they might not be the most visually appealing route/trail markers, but the guidelines are clearly there and should be followed until we're told otherwise.
And again we come back to
Mugas are mass produced
Trail markers are mass produced and uninteresting to look at
Goals for football pitches are mass produced
So why do you insist on that criteria for ncn but not for those other 3? You have never actually given a proper answer just deflect away from it
Also, you missed a bit that gies massive context
Does not seem to be a great place of exploration, place for exercise, or place to be social.
Which, funnily enough, the ncn meets 2, arguably all 3 if you do walking or cycling groups along them
Fair enough, but on looking at the Eligability Criteria page, we see this:
A note on eligibility: if a Wayspot nomination meets one of the below criteria, that's great! But remember that eligibility alone isn't sufficient to turn a nomination into an accepted Wayspot. Carefully consider the eligibility criteria, along with the acceptance criteria, rejection criteria, and content guidelines, when evaluating nominations.
When reviewing NCN markers, I'm using my judgement. The problem is, there is a section of the reviewing community are falling back on the good old "If it's eligible then you MUST accept my nomination" waypoint. If you look at the series of photos posted at the start of the thread then you can see some people say "Yes" to them all, some say "perhaps that one" and some say "No", which says to me the community are undecided. Personally, I think there are just too many undistinguished generic blue markers out there to accept them ALL, without consideration. Think UK postboxes, but on a much larger scale. It would be the same as allowing those yellow "Public Footpath" discs to become waypoints. For me, when reviewing NCN markers, I want to see either one of the "ornamental fish things" markers or a trail name on the sign. Generic blue numbered signs / signposts etc etc. are, in my view, are all mass-produced, generic, annd not visually unique or interesting.
I look forward to a good "Dislike" count on this post, but that is how I will continue to score NCN markers. "But but but..... Niantic said" arguments aside, as long as Niantic allow every reviewer room for "judgement" that's how I interpret these paragraphs from Niantic.
I've long said Niantic don't do enough to support reviewers in terms of providing feedback to reviewers with regards to their reviews that don't match the overall community view. They need to do this in order to help reviewers "get things right". Personally, I'd be very happy if Niantic were more specific and definite about certain Waypoint submission types - e.g. UK Postboxes, Belgium and German Trailmarkers, random bits of greenspace etc, and provide us with a simple "These ones / styles = Yes, These ones / styles = No". If Niantic would like to be more specific on the various types of "NCN markers" we have seen in here I would be more than happy. More definite criteria lead for better reviewing and nominations.
(NCN) trail markers are among the most clarified candidates. These clarifications have already been posted in this thread on page 1. I will post them again:
https://community.wayfarer.nianticlabs.com/discussion/comment/111961#Comment_111961 https://community.wayfarer.nianticlabs.com/discussion/comment/112676#Comment_112676 https://community.wayfarer.nianticlabs.com/discussion/comment/113993#Comment_113993
Is that not specific enough for you?
Giffard, Tintino, Danbocat, Atlas and VK could all come in here directly telling you that you are wrong, and that you must accept all NCN marker nominations that don't have serious problems with their picture, title, description or location, and empower their statement by banning your Wayfarer account for a year, and you would still not be convinced. The problem is not that Niantic is not specific and definite enough, the problem is that you don't want to see it.
Well, considering some of the comments by quite a few people that follow on from some of the reference posts, it's not as cut and dried as you seem to think. It appears that it's not just me that has issues with some NCN markers. Note the use of the word "some". As I said, some definitive clarification from Niantic would be welcome.
The comments made after Giffards last comment almost all show that these people did understand the clarification. Some didn't like it, but they understood it.
It is nothing new that many reviewers hate all kinds of trail markers as wayspots, and actively campaign against them. That doesn't change Niantic's position on them.
Like, there was a list and Giffard said exactly what ones were good and which ones weren't, even after all the "reasons" against, you're the one who said you wanted a list of what good and bad very recently, yet you dint like the list we got for this?
Yes, we know that eligibility ≠ acceptability. The thing here is that Giffard specifically stated they were acceptable. One of the four acceptability criteria is that a nomination must meet at least one of the three eligibility criteria. Therefore, if something is clarified to be acceptable, it is by definition also eligible, and shouldn't therefore be able to be rejected using reasoning under the "Does not meet eligibility criteria" section, as something cannot both meet the eligibility criteria and not meet it at the same time (not unless you're trying to create some sort of Wayfarer paradox, and my love of sci-fi has not prepared me for that specific type of paradox, so please don't do that. I already have a headache from this thread haha).
Of course, other rejection reasons could still apply, such as the photo or text being rubbish, or if there's a mismatched, inaccurate or unsafe location involved (so pretty much the things that the submitter has direct input on, which obviously weren't really covered in the other thread because those things will always differ when submitting any given marker). That applies to any submission. I'm sure that when it was clarified they were acceptable that their acceptability was based on if a competent submitter was submitting them and following the guidelines correctly though.
As @Gazzas89-PGO and @TWVer-ING have both said, these are among some of the more clarified things when it comes to Wayfarer. The fact that people are still quarrelling is simply because there's people who don't like them and are refusing to accept the clarification because of their own personal dislike of them.
As I've said, I'm one of the people who doesn't like them myself, but in my case I've accepted that my own personal opinion of them doesn't match what Niantic says about them, and as it's Niantic's database and set of rules, I've adjusted my reviewing and submitting habits accordingly to conform with the clarification. At the end of the day, as a reviewer I have to use what information I have to hand to make a decision that is in line with the current criteria and clarifications, and those currently say that they're acceptable, so that's the end of it for me, whether I personally like it or not. I have a 79% agreement rate (for whatever that's worth), so I'm assuming my approach to the system is serving me fairly well.
Wonder if we will see these going through with the appeals now?
This was rejected 7 times by the community but accepted on appeal by niantic
Figured they would be, hopefully when other people's appeals start getting accepted and they show up in games it will help get people voting correctly
I've now had an appeal for an ncn accepted, I havent heard of a single ncn marker been rejected on appeal. So it seems that niantic are more than happy happy have these in, a couple could be an anomaly, but I've not heard of any being rejected, so thats a trend
I do think it is too early to draw too many conclusions, but overall it does seem that sending one to appeal is valid ( I do worry about complete rubbish clogging up appeals).
It maybe is too early, but I've heard of at least 6 before mine got accepted. So 7 does seem like a trend that they are acceptable
I am becoming more hopeful for not only appeals but fresh submissions.
Hopefully, the more that show up in areas, the more reviewers will take notice. I know its not always good to look at what's in the game ad **** can come in, but the ncn really should have been allowed from the start (exercise and exploration).
Does this recent clarification, on E, make NCN markers ineligible?
They would be on the road/street with no trail name, it’s just a bike and a number.
Is National Cycle Network #× not the name in the same way that Thames Path, Pennine Way, English Coastal Path etc are?
Even if that applies, many are just a bike symbol and a number by the street/road which E in the above states is Not Good, as they don’t have the trail name on them.