Confirm these markers are not eligable



  • Elijustrying-INGElijustrying-ING Posts: 5,312 Ambassador

    that contains interesting info in putting a trail together. 🤔

    That aside it is important that this guide relates to England.

    i believe there is no law of trespass in Scotland (you are free to roam). There are still rights of way footpaths. Councils are not required to do the signage (as they are in England) and many path signs are maintained by Scotways. Good signs in general.

    Don’t know the situation in Wales.

    But maybe we have gone round this enough.

  • Oakes1923-PGOOakes1923-PGO Posts: 419 ✭✭✭✭

    For trail markers "generic" is not the standard (and you know it) as they are simply an anchor for the trail (footpath public right of way bridle way I don't care what you call it they are all the same to Niantic). Its a place intended for public, pedestrian use. They may get you from point A to point B but they make a great place to get outside exercise and explore. They are acceptable by current Niantic standards.

    Now if the local community in Kent wants to deny them, that is up to them. But don't start crying when they start showing up because they are acceptable based on a global standard.

  • Gazzas89-PGOGazzas89-PGO Posts: 2,596 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Didn't actually answer my argument though, I agreed the public pathway markers aren't acceptable, but YOURE argument of markers need to be named is not correct, and my example is of markers put up by a council to encourage exercise and exploration, the ACTUAL CURRENT niantic approved guidelines.

  • Gazzas89-PGOGazzas89-PGO Posts: 2,596 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Yeah, Scotland has right to roam, its why, for the most part, people up here accept trig stones even if they are on farm land, because its legal to go to them, gather at them, most farmers will even drive your to then if you ask where it is on their land

  • X0bai-PGOX0bai-PGO Posts: 1,667 ✭✭✭✭✭


  • Oakes1923-PGOOakes1923-PGO Posts: 419 ✭✭✭✭
    edited April 2022

    That may be taking the argument a bit to far X. Might want to dial it back just a little.

  • TWVer-INGTWVer-ING Posts: 774 ✭✭✭✭✭

    If I understand these signs correctly, they are used to mark trails that were used to get from one location to another 200 years ago. At that time, they were just infrastructure. If I compare them to similar trails in my country, their usage declined when cars were getting more popular, and many of them disappeared over the years. In the more recent years, they regained popularity among hikers, and are getting restored and marked by councils. Their current use is no longer as infrastructure, but for exercise. This is different from a sidewalk, which is still mainly infrastructure. There is certainly a case to be made for their eligibility.

  • Shottix-INGShottix-ING Posts: 84 ✭✭✭

    I partly agree with you, the markers would have to be walked past, you can't exactly drive through a farmers field, but I think the generic side of them overrules the excersise thing. They are heavily mass produced and exist everywhere unlike a specific trail which you'll find in a country park or an area of natural beauty. These are too generic, almost as numerous as lampposts I would expect. If these were deemed acceptable you'd instantly see them flooding wayfarer.

  • Elijustrying-INGElijustrying-ING Posts: 5,312 Ambassador

    @TWVer-ING I think that is fairly close to the reality. About 70 years ago attitudes to these paths in England changed as people sought to enjoy the outdoors, rambling became more popular. Many ramblers associations have worked hard to map and maintain access. More recently local areas have been promoting these for exercise and tourism ( usually good “green” credentials )

    @ElwynGreygoose-ING The fact that the path is across private land is neither here or there, it does not make any path ineligible. Large amounts of long distance, well signed and named and promoted paths cross private land as they utilise these original rights of way. It is the land owners responsibility to ensure that the path is safely accessible. The various ramblers associations do surveys, and report problems to local councils for enforcement. I have found several of these instances myself and reported them. The best farmers either provide a clear path across the field or well maintained short diversions around the edge. ( I have a lot of links to the farming community and was a member of young farmers many years ago so well aware of the conflicts).

    I’m not actually in favour of plain yellow arrows some of which look a bit toogood to be true, but if effort has been put in to using the paths to create an exercise/interest route then very happy to consider. I think anything that provides new ways to explore and exercise where you can’t drive is to be encouraged.

  • ElwynGreygoose-INGElwynGreygoose-ING Posts: 244 ✭✭✭✭
    edited April 2022

    Yes you're right, it all depends. This is where the submitter (as always) needs to do some research, and put some effort into the nomination.

    Some generic public footpaths do indeed have a special purpose or history. They could be a bronze-age trackway or a Roman road. They could lead to a prehistoric monument. They could provide access to a nature reserve. And so on, and so forth.

    In each case, it's up to the submitter to argue the case and provide evidence.

    But the point I'm making is that reviewers should not be accepting public footpath markers ****-nilly just because they are public footpath signs.

    *lol at Niantic censoring

  • Elijustrying-INGElijustrying-ING Posts: 5,312 Ambassador


    and the censor strikes again w illy nilly🙄🤪

  • Oakes1923-PGOOakes1923-PGO Posts: 419 ✭✭✭✭

    great points and goes to the heart of the issue. They can be eligible, just like any POI, given the proper context and valid nomination evidence. The OP wants Niantic to confirm they are ineligible, which is simply not the case.

  • X0bai-PGOX0bai-PGO Posts: 1,667 ✭✭✭✭✭

    So you agree that these are ineligible and should be rejected unless and until the nominator provides evidence of further eligibility.

    Glad we can have common ground on that.

  • Oakes1923-PGOOakes1923-PGO Posts: 419 ✭✭✭✭

    They are NOT INELIGIBLE, otherwise regardless of supporting evidence they would need to be rejected.

    The ground you are standing on is a bog. I'd suggest moving away, slowly.

  • RandomExploit-INGRandomExploit-ING Posts: 948 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited April 2022

    Niantic have said in this forum;

    "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."

    ANY marker on a hiking trail is acceptable.

    Not any named marker.

    In black and white they say they want more markers so people can follow these trails end explore. These are walking trails. Just not named ones. They are predominantly in Fields/out In the countryside in the UK where people go for long walks or rambling. Not to get from A to B like people are suggesting in this thread.

    Niantic have also said that mass produced doesn't matter in this sense.

    Why is there still an argument about this?

    I want to start submitting some of these as some recent walks would never be found by the majority of people because even these small signs start off in hidden areas. Without OpenStreetMap apps and other tools i use to find things, I would never have found these routes either. Niantic want people to find these gems but impossible if these markers always get rejected

    Imagine seeing POI in your game in an extended T shape across a field. You could easily work out that there is a crossway on the trail where you can then follow the trail left or right. If there was just a single POI past a field you might not go that was as you don't think you can continue walking and would have to double back. Hard to explain unless you like to explore

  • RandomExploit-INGRandomExploit-ING Posts: 948 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited April 2022

    On a recent walk the ramblers association and Local council had out up new gates and new signs for a nice public footpaths trail through farmland. It was the black disk with yellow public footpaths writing. The issue is you wouldn't find the start of the trails from one end at least without other maps and tools.

    I marked where the public footpath discs on posts were roughly on a map to give an idea of where they were. The area is sparse, odd farm, POI would only be useful to people exploring or passing through for whatever reason. Im Sure Niantic would want this trail and the discs to be POI even if reviewing groups think they know better than Niantic (appeal wins is telling me they don't)

    The nearby palladian folly temple is accessible from a public footpath trail. People might have found and submitted that sooner if the public footpath discs were POI but it's not obvious you can walk that route without other maps and tools....Niantic wants to change that with their games but can't when reviewers refuse to abide by what Niantic say

    People should be able to find these interesting things and routes with Niantics games. They shouldn't have to use extra maps and tools like I do. These type of submissions help that and Niantics goals

  • Elijustrying-INGElijustrying-ING Posts: 5,312 Ambassador

    I don’t think things are clear cut and I feel it is up to the submitter to make a case.

    What you find on a walk that is interesting is very subjective. For example the there are stretches of the Pennine Way that go over moorland that is largely featureless and it is the challenge of the walk and keeping going. There are footpaths I know along small streams where you can discover industrial archaeology- it’s simply marked footpath.

    I’m not about to submit it or say the Pennine way is not a trail but offer as examples as to why a simplistic approach is not always helpful. There are judgement calls to be made and every case should be taken seriously.

  • RandomExploit-INGRandomExploit-ING Posts: 948 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I understand your argument too and I think the concern is justified, yet at the same time I don't think it's for reviewers (or review chat groups) to decide what they think should be in the game based on how they think it will affect the game. We should be following Niantics criteria and they have said that something that marks a trail which shows someone a route which they can explore should be allowed. They clarified this.

    Personally I don't like the fact so many post boxes are POI, I think too many devalues the real rare ones. It's similar to your argument in a way. That got narrowed down to only Pre-ER boxs which took numbers down a down a bit and I feel that even though trail marker/discs are more in-tune of exploring, excercise and outdoor activity mission statement goals, they could be narrowed down in a similar way.

    But it needs to be different for different countries and even counties and how they differ, which is another struggle with the one size fits all Niantic tries to do.

    Im Not sure exactly how it should be narrowed down except a minimum distance apart except if there is a junction. Not in towns/urban areas of X amount of residents but it's doesn't make it easy for reviewers.

    I would love to say if people just used common sense and saw it was in a good place by looking at the map but seeing people giving ridiculous arguments for rejecting a pub/bar on a golf course, it seems common sense is in short supply and can't be relied on.

    Like I say, I understand concerns given but we should be following Niantics guidelines and not what we think. As it stands, they should be going through.

    Probably a mute point/argument as after a good run of everything getting accepted, im starting to get silly rejections again for the last week or so, as if someone's come back from a break. Doesn't matter if it's a trail marker or not. Expecting to see a pillbox rejected next...

  • ElwynGreygoose-INGElwynGreygoose-ING Posts: 244 ✭✭✭✭

    Niantic just rejected my appeal of a named trail marker (full written name, not a colour, numbers, initials or symbol) as "mass-produced, generic".

    Where does this take the discussion?

  • Gazzas89-PGOGazzas89-PGO Posts: 2,596 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Maybe it's now named trails that are bad and oxalic footpaths that are good 🤣🤣

  • PkmnTrainerJ-INGPkmnTrainerJ-ING Posts: 5,060 Ambassador

    That’s where I’m going wrong then. Off to use my 80 nominations (Ingress and Pokémon GO) on the public footpaths!

  • RandomExploit-INGRandomExploit-ING Posts: 948 ✭✭✭✭✭

    It doesn't help the conversation much but I came across a selection of u not named/named things which are different from the usual ones. One is a wooden public footway sign post but with an official metal named badge stuck on it lol. Im Sure that one will get some votes scratching their heads.

    Today's photos:

    That last one is the same as many others design wise EXCEPT it has a logo and initials in it.

    So names, logos shouldnt be what's relied on.

    No one would find the right trails across that golf course either. Would be a perfect place to accept generic markers so people know they can walk across certain bits of the course that are far from obvious

  • Elijustrying-INGElijustrying-ING Posts: 5,312 Ambassador

    The official page by Surrey county council

    gives examples of the different styles of marking the greensand way so all of the greensand way ones here look feasible - correct description and proof of location are important.

    Not so sure on the one that just shows permissive bridleway would need to know more

Sign In or Register to comment.