Appeal-Vocations ....

Raachermannl-INGRaachermannl-ING Posts: 1,070 ✭✭✭✭✭

Today one of my folks got an disturbing Appeal rejection:

This is a perfect hiking trail marker, that fulfills even the oldest criteria back from OPR-guidelines as well as nowadays criteria, that are worded in a more open and inclusive way, what also NiaCasey back then stated.

OPR guidelines: (selfmade translation from the time when PoGo was allowed to submit)

-> candidate trail marker, accept with 5*, adventurous tourist sight and promotes exercising

Then there was an AMA from 2018:

And then the criteria re-work came together with wayfarer and everywhere was stated, that hiking trail markers are considered now more inclusive.


So let's look at this trail marker with the old and even harder criteria:

Proper Trail names: check

Both trails are long distance trails (Saalehorizontale with circular 91km and Feengrotten-Kyffhäuser with 80.4km not circular)

Location accurracy: check

You can easily find all the intermediate targets with plausible distances around there.

Supporting picture and Sat view also fit very well with the big meadow surrounded by forest:

Even google hybrid map is okay here (in Germany often its **** in rural area)


Further description of the trail: (according to AMA) check

There are lots of intermediate targets together with distance measures and pictograms, what you might find there. The pictograms:

1 - a castle ruin (only the tower keep left) https://intel.ingress.com/intel?ll=50.990466,11.716208&z=17&pll=50.990466,11.716208

2 - a restaurant https://intel.ingress.com/intel?ll=50.991449,11.718655&z=17&pll=50.991449,11.718655 (the wayspot here is the wall ornament, but the part of the title "Zur Tautenburg" is the name of the restaurant)

3 - a nice view point, that has a google marker, that you can see in the maps above. was also rejected.

4 - a shelter - https://intel.ingress.com/intel?ll=50.985813,11.680097&z=17&pll=50.985813,11.680097

5 - another restaurant, guess this one

6 - another castle ruin - https://intel.ingress.com/intel?ll=50.960916,11.647746&z=17&pll=50.960916,11.647746


So .... how can a Nia portal **** reject this appeal? All necessary information was given in the supporting statement, or is obvious.

I'm used to the fact, that for unknown reason German (and Czech+Polish) reviewers cant deal with hiking trail markers nearly since ever, but that Nia also rejects fully valid hiking trail markers is simply disturbing.

Btw there was a short time, when hiking trail markers were treated correctly: the time, when the supporting statement and supporting photo were released, until PGO was allowed to review. Since that point in time it's again pure randomness with hiking trail markers....

Comments

  • Raachermannl-INGRaachermannl-ING Posts: 1,070 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited March 2022

    The 2nd one is for sure not enough for an appeal. I know, that it's a weak candidate, but imho a bench with such a view (on top of a steep limestone hillside, nearly 150m difference in altitude above the level of the river) is a gathering place as well as a spot for exploration. Maybe not an bullseye on both criteria, but enough for 3 or 4 stars imho.

    .... and people, that click on "Natural feature" in that case ask for slaps ...

  • Raachermannl-INGRaachermannl-ING Posts: 1,070 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Don't know, where u are from, but this is in Eastern Germany normal due to different reasons:

    • nearly all of our forests are economically used. Even most of the nature reserves are managed by forest rangers. Pure nature are less than 5% of our forests according to google. Germanys least human influenced forests are at military training area .... so our forests are full of forest roads, and hiking/biking trails use them too
    • hiking trails are in mountainious or somehow well wooded area more like a network, not single standalone trails. Not all paths have a proper name. Sometimes it's only a color-code like you can also see an example at this trail marker: the white-blue-white symbol for example. White-color-white stands for trails with a starting point and an end point. A big colorful dot in a white square stands for a circular trail. Sometimes also a diagonal colorful bar in a white square is for educational trails....
    • The forest roads are usually not accessible to normal cars. Most car accessible roads are blocked by prohibition signs (that exclude forest ranger cars) and barriers (although they can be opened with triangular hollow scrapers, that can be bought in shops with hunting equipment, but scarcely anybody owns such things except forest rangers and registered hunters)

    Here the given example again with where the barrier is. So the trail marker is not accessible by car for normal people. And the path, that heads to south at the trail marker is pedestrian/bike only:

    But in general the OSM data is in Germany very well. Concerning forest roads you can take that seriously. The longer brown dashed roads are good enough, so that for example a lunch box like a Toyota Prius could use them. The brown roads with shorter dashes are accessible for offroad vehicles like Ford Rangers. And red dotted paths are pedestrian/bike only.


    Btw street signs in Germany have to follow this design:

    blue+white - Autobahn <3

    yellow+black - directional stuff between towns

    white+black - directional stuff within a town

    brown+white - touristic car accessible targets


    The borderline case of the German signs are the biking trail markers of the 21st century:

    The following design can be seen as generic infrastructure, but when there are such small additional plaques, than they are for sure eligible. These small plaques are the symbols of named trails.


    Now the design of the inital hiking trail marker here is without any doubt a valid hiking trail marker. Green signs with white letters and color-codes for different trails are the traditional style of at least federal states Saxony and Thuringia. The old ones are fully wooden ... so here an example with old wooden signs, and newer tinplate markers together at one post:


  • Raachermannl-INGRaachermannl-ING Posts: 1,070 ✭✭✭✭✭

    And now the 2nd thing, that I wanted to appeal its rejected appeal:


    Like the supplemental text says: this is one of two canal bridges of a 15km long canal from the early 16th century. It was created to deliver lots of wood to the silver mines of Schneeberg, because medieval mining wasted lots of wood.

    The canal is nowadays part of UNESCO world heritage site entirety Ore Mountain Mining Region, has a proper wikipedia article:


    The path next to the canal is nowadays a hiking/biking trail. The former staff building at the beginning of the canal is a hotel and restaurant. There are now 5 wayspots out there, that are directly connected to this canal:

    So its very reasonable, that also the second canal bridge should become a wayspot. 6 wayspots spread on 15km is okay.


    Further some words concerning the rejection reasons:

    One of them is bad picture. It's a bit dark, yes, but that's nearly impossible to prevent that. The location is in a dark valley with steep hillsides and surrounded by large spruce trees. The pictures were taken during afternoon of a almost sunny October day.

    Furthermore the rejection criteria "bad photo" is for underexposed pitch black pictures. A dark location or bad weather conditions are no reasonable cause for a bad-photo-rejection. The candidate is easy identifiable. You can see a junction of two waterbodies, and that's it.

    Maybe a better photo is somehow possible, with a professional camera and during noon, but that's not possible for me.

  • tp235-INGtp235-ING Posts: 1,383 ✭✭✭✭✭

    In general, I can say that there are no signs or interpretive signs indicating that the bridge spans a historic canal.

    Therefore, it could be said that your photos and description were not communicated to the reviewer.


    This often happens.

    For example, if a building is historic but the reviewer's photos and description do not adequately convey this, it is considered a private residence or farm.

    In some cases, a statue of Jesus is determined to be an accessory to a private tomb rather than a religious sculpture.

    Trail markers are often misinterpreted as road signs.


    Therefore, we believe that some objects are different when asked if they can all be considered abusive.

  • Raachermannl-INGRaachermannl-ING Posts: 1,070 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited March 2022

    The bridge doesnt cross a canal .... the bridge IS the canal. It crosses a natural creek ;)

    So it is not only a footbridge of a hiking trail, that is in general eligible according to old AMAs. It's also a historical canal on a bridge, and UNESCO world heritage ....

    Post edited by Raachermannl-ING on
  • grendelwulf-INGgrendelwulf-ING Posts: 301 ✭✭✭✭

    It's not a good photo. I don't even see a bridge in it

  • Raachermannl-INGRaachermannl-ING Posts: 1,070 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited March 2022

    You see a canal, that is out of square above a natural creek ..... so how do you explain this without a bridge?

  • tp235-INGtp235-ING Posts: 1,383 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited March 2022

    I understand your point.

    However, I also looked at the photos you have attached in other discussions and I saw several nominations that were not photos that would indicate at a glance that they are good POI's.

    Therefore, I think some improvement is needed.


    The photo should be taken in the same composition as the photo on the official website indicating that the site is a World Heritage Site.

    Change the title to a searchable term.

    Change the content of the description.

    Include the URL of the relevant World Heritage page in the supplementary information.

    Various measures can be considered.

  • Juleswtal-PGOJuleswtal-PGO Posts: 32 ✭✭✭

    Funny that the same kind of waysports are currently shown in the showcase of my region (southern Germany)..


    btw, all three are from the same player, in the same place, with the exact same name though, but that's just another "showcase fail"...

    As for the bench and bridge, I would have most likely rejected them as well.

  • dustinyeeaah-PGOdustinyeeaah-PGO Posts: 526 ✭✭✭✭✭

    It's a miracle these got accepted while the rejection wave is still going on. And shouldn't the featured Wayspots be kinda random? Last time I checked the featured Wayspots in my cell were distributed without a recognizable pattern

  • Raachermannl-INGRaachermannl-ING Posts: 1,070 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Doesnt work there. The title photo of the wiki page is the second canal bridge, that is in a more civilized location and so easy to take a photo. Even for this one I needed 2(?) attempts to get it accepted.

    But there are way better circumstances.

    If I would do the picture for the other one from the same angle you wouldnt see the natural creek under it.

    Taking a picture from a position not on the bridge would mean to jump over the canal ..... 2m without run-up? Nope.


    But nethertheless it's clear how to deal with it according to criteria:

    • it's a bridge with hiking trail and historical canal right next to the trail, so the statements for bridges as part of hiking trails have to be applied.
    • picture is bad, yes, but not bad enough to fulfill any rejection criteria.

    So in the end it's not really a shame, if reviewers reject it. The footbridge-rules are comparatively old and stuff for advanced reviewers. But Nia should know their own rules ....


    Btw: stuff doesnt need to be good on first glance. Statements like this indicate only shallow reviewing. And back in OPR there have been guideline entries, that were worded like "hidden gems" and "sight off the beaten paths". So the guidelines there especially encouraged to submit stuff, that is not for 1st glance ....

  • Hosette-INGHosette-ING Posts: 3,470 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I wonder if selection of featured wayspots has to do with the "strength" of the acceptance. Is something that is universally voted yes more likely to be featured than something that reviewers considered more marginal?

    I assume that the German rejection wave is rejecting everything that isn't submitted by an insider of the rejection bot cabal. If so, that would explain why most people are getting things rejected but a few people are not just getting things approved but also that their stuff is showing up as featured wayspots.

    That makes me wonder... is anyone keeping an eye on what wayspots are making it through in this area? If so, look at the people whose stuff is getting through and they are probably the people responsible for the rejections.

  • Raachermannl-INGRaachermannl-ING Posts: 1,070 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Two other hiking/biking trail markers now were accepted after appeaing them.


    From the appeals of me and my folks it might look like, that the hiking trail problem on Nia side could be fixxed. But then this newer thread showed, that it isnt.

    My interpretation: Seems to be still a staff member out there, that is simply incompetent and that didnt read/understand the 3 basic criteria and the example enumeration under them. So it's a coin flip to have this/these person(s) involved in your appeal, or not.

  • Raachermannl-INGRaachermannl-ING Posts: 1,070 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @NianticGiffard @NianticTintino-ING now there is again an appeal rejection, that violates existing AMA-answers:

    Description text is roughly the story from the supporting text. So even if we neglect the detail, that this is an artificial waterfall and so no natural feature, let's nethertheless have a look at this under the natural feature rules:

    From November 2020 AMA:

    Funny thing: I linked this in my own appeal text, and now Niantic sends me the same link in their copy-paste-text....

    First of all we see, that waterfalls are enumerated as an example for good natural wayspots. So .... CHECK.

    Then let's look at the rest from the back:

    Noteworthy backstory: as artificial tourist attraction from early 1900s and as highest waterfall of the federal state, and proven by noteworthy wikipedia article - CHECK


    Then there is this small sentence in between:

    When considering these, think about whether there’s a specific location you can direct people to: a sign, an informational board, etc.

    This AMA-question is about the natural objects itself, not infoboards about them. Infoboards would fulfill criteria in a totally different way. Nethertheless I see the idea behind this little sentence: lots of natural features might be area-ish and so there might be a lack of an logical anchor point for a wayspot. For such cases might a place name sign, a sceneric view point of an infoboard a good choice.

    But we are here discussing a waterfall, that is nearly a point on the map. That doesnt need an additional anchor point. And the wording of this AMA answer doesnt declare them as necessary. It is written down with "think about" .... this is even weaker than "shall/should".

    And of course I thought about it and didn't want to use the infoboard, because it's roughly 100m of. From the infoboard you can't even see the waterfall because of lots of trees in front of it. So this is not an good anchor point for it. The location of the infoboard is at the red box:

    So here a supp pic for a possible nomination of that infoboard:

    So you can see these two shelter things from OSM and the curve of the small street.

    From the point of view of this picture the waterfall would be hidden over 100m on the right side behind multiple rows of spruce trees....


    Last but not least:

    Whoever processed my appeal did neither understand the linked AMA answer nor did that person even read the copy-paste-text.

    This text phrase is only a placeholder ..... this indicates extreme shallow "work" attitude ....

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

    Ayup. My first appeal came back rejected for the same "natural features" reason -- despite everything you said above regarding our current set of directives that these ARE now allowed. (And for a bit more injury to my soul, my nomination was NOT actually a "natural feature", being a historical artifact that merely straddles one.)

    But I'm taking the long view, and I'm resubmitting it via another appeal, another rejected nomination for the same thing that happened to be of the tiny 6" metal plaque next to the actual POI.

    @NianticTintino-ING if you would be so kind as to help re-educate the Niantic staff / appeals reviewers, about what we've been instructed regarding so-called "natural features"? The sign is, as described, NOT actually required -- those merely act as an "anchor" point, especially when such a natural feature is relatively large.

  • Ganta3Crow9-PGOGanta3Crow9-PGO Posts: 41 ✭✭✭

    3x the same hiking route sign 2 different decisions, I even linked Giffards statement about hiking signs in extra information: https://community.wayfarer.nianticlabs.com/discussion/comment/111961#Comment_111961

    Does even Niantic employees don't know their own rule catalogue?

  • BitKloepplerin-INGBitKloepplerin-ING Posts: 92 ✭✭✭

    First rejected as FAKE (you can read the name of the street in the surrounding picture)

    Rejected by niantic because of no-criteria.

    "Rundweg um Chemnitz" is an official hiking path around the city.

    https://www.routeyou.com/de-de/route/view/4372918/hikingroute/rundweg-um-chemnitz

    It's surprising that "The object in question does not meet the Wayfarer criteria."

    https://community.wayfarer.nianticlabs.com/discussion/comment/155876/?fbclid=IwAR333Hg1cd49Gj5cJ0RVAB1IYmLYiMEWQZIyNbtXEuwEuCD3XFrsS2WCvaI#Comment_155876

    My nomination belongs to "b) A marker with the trail name on a street <- Good (Correct)"

    Does Niantic know their own clarification?

  • CarolFigueiraRS-PGOCarolFigueiraRS-PGO Posts: 381 Ambassador

    I think the people doing the appeals should be better trained.

  • Tamadri-INGTamadri-ING Posts: 17 ✭✭

    Hallo zusammen,

    könnte bitte jemand mir erklären, warum dieser Wanderweg nicht den Kriterien von Niantic erfüllt? Als Einspruchs-Text habe ich kurz und knapp auf englisch erwähnt, es handelt sich um einen Ort der Bewegung und einen namhaften und sehr bekannten Wanderweg. Wanderweg ist diesbezüglich auch unter „ein Ort der Bewegung“ aufgelistet. Dies kann man auch bei dem Link, den ein Mitarbeiter per Antwort gesendet hatte entnehmen.


    Translate via Google Translator:

    Hello, everyone,

    could someone please explain to me why this trail doesn't meet Niantic's criteria? As a text of the objection, I briefly and concisely mentioned in English that it is a place of movement and a well-known and very well-known hiking trail. Hiking trail is also listed under "a place of movement" in this regard. This can also be seen in the link that an employee sent in a reply.



    The description text and the additional information are now translated directly via Google Translator:

    This sign of the Rems hiking trail from the Schwäbischer Albverein* is at 15.6 kilometers at an altitude of 349 meters. The Rems hiking trail runs 85km from the source of the Rems near Essingen to where it flows into the Neckar in Neckarrems. After four years of planning and preparation, the Rems hiking trail was inaugurated on May 15, 1988 to mark the centenary of the Schwäbischen Albvereins*.

    *Swabian Alb Association


    A hiking trail is a place of movement. The hiking trail can only be passed on foot or by bike. This hiking trail is a nationally well-known hiking trail.

    https://www.outdooractive.com/de/route/fernwanderweg/schwaebische-alb/remswanderweg-hauptweg-/110696378/

  • Raachermannl-INGRaachermannl-ING Posts: 1,070 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @NianticCasey-ING @NianticGiffard @NianticAtlas @NianticVK

    So .... why are you answering lots of threads with the same topic, but neglecting this one over weeks?

    Am I somehow inconvenient for you, so that I get constantly disregarded? Am I posting to much mass fake reports in the Invalid-wayspot-section? Or maybe because of blaming your company by posting the reveal of the German bot fraud, that undermines your whole wayfarer system? Or because of older threads about S2 cell analysis and criticizing the prioritisation algorithm?

    In the appeal-sections it's the same. My posts take weeks or months until something happens, while others are processed within days.

  • MargariteDVille-INGMargariteDVille-ING Posts: 2,848 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Niantic's message changes, about trail signs that are included with street signs.

    These are not "slam dunk" trail markers.

Sign In or Register to comment.