It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.
Sign In with Ingress Sign In with Pokémon GO
"Permissive Bridleway" - No. All the rest - Yes.
Not everyone looks up that stuff when submitting or voting which is a shame, sometimes they me related,sometimes signal, limited data etc.
But the only the thing that makes some of those different from others that would be rejected is either(use the last picture as an easy example);
a) the council has decided to give a name to what otherwise is just a collection of..footpaths between two places as someone said earlier in the thread
b) the disc is almost identical to a standard public footpath, but initials or picture added.
Why should one with be rejected and one without not, when the difference is so minimal or simply if the council has bothered to note he route on their website or give it a name? With or without they both can do the same thing and mark a similar route but one would be rejected and another not.
I know bridleways are not accepted but never seen the rule as to why. Does anyone know why? Is horse riding not a sport and in the example given Inca previous post, it has the name of the area on the disc so a named route for horse riding is how im looking at it, despite not submitting them usually except the occasional one which has been accepted
My point was it's crazy that one of thes is accepted but the other rejected
I would work on the basis that a permissive bridleway sign is a simple statement of what is allowed - so walkers, cyclists and horses. No walls or stiles to clamber over. But if it is permissive then there is no right to use the path, it is all at the land owner’s discretion, so it can be closed on the whim of the land owner.
I plan to appeal a rejected bridleway which is a named trail with very distinctive signage.
No, because one is a generic mass produced marker, and the other has the official trail logo on it.
One is a slightly modified version of the other and both kinds are found on the same route
Don't pay any mind to sogman, they know its not the standard, at this point it's simply a straight up troll post. At this point I'm convinced if you should them a Jackson Pollock painting they would claim its generic paint splat on a canvas, 1* rejection.
But only the "trail specific" markers are eligible. Ordinary, basic, generic, mass produced, not interesting markers get a "no vote" That's the joy of the UK footpath "scene". Once upon a time thre were just public footpaths, then people said "lets call this bit a trail", and trail specific markers were invented. They were stuck onto or alongside the existing "not eligible" markers, so some trails will have a mix of both types in various places.
So you yourself admit the generic ones can show the route of a trail, which Niantic have said should be accepted!
Niantic have said they should be accepted for this reason. The mass produced argument was brought up in the various threads but Niantic still clarified they should be accepted still. It's a bad argument used by voters who want to ignore Niantics guidance imo
I'm not ignoring Niantic guidelines - Niiantic have not "clarified" they should still be accepted. As has been said many times before, meeting eligibility criteria does not mean "it must be accepted". I'm going by the rejection criteria as follows:
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.
Nominations and edit submissions may be entirely rejected if it meets at least one of the following rejection criteria:
Does not seem to be a great place of exploration, place for exercise, or place to be social. The object is mass-produced, generic, or not visually unique or interesting.
In the UK there are approximately 225,000 km or public rights of way, mainly "Public Footpaths". Even assuming a bottom figure of 1 yellow disc marker per 1km, thats 225,000 of the things. Given that we see marker on a public footpath at nearly every field boundary crossing or direction change, then we are probably looking at well over 1,000,000 + identical looking markers. If thats not something thats "mass produced, generic and not intersting", then I don't know what is.
When will you get this? The yellow arrow, or painted post itself is not the POI, the trail is the POI with a Trail Marker as the ANCHOR to be used to continued exploration of exercise... Understand the distinction. You cant just nominate a yellow arrow in the middle of the park with no path. Its nothing. But you are stating that they REPRESENT a public throughway for travelers. ITS AN ANCHOR!!!!!!!!! Niantic doesn't care how many public footpaths you have in a given area. The don't have a rule against the number of playgrounds in a town, or churches on a road. You're complaining about one stop every 1 km? Do you know how far a km is? Your argument is nonsensical.
@sogNinjaman-ING .... I'd suggest reading the December AMA... its seems like you missed that one..
Note that we plan to restructure the rejection reasons next year, as some no longer apply with the criteria refresh we did a year ago. For example, a rejection simply for being generic isn’t sufficient anymore, what is important is how interesting and relevant it is as a place worthy of adventuring out to.
A panel/arrow saying you have the right to walk between two houses or in the side of a field is still not eligible, as it's not interesting or relevant as a place worthy of adventuring out to.
Many a true word said in jest!
Unfortunately he is serious and affects my submissions
It's there in black and white that the generic reason is no more valid and it's in black and white about markers along walking paths that make people explore being acceptable.
Im waiting for certain voters to come up with a new reason to reject to support their continued reject as much as possible agenda
What about if that alley between 2 houses meets a road and across the road the footpath continues past three world war Pillboxes? I use that as an example of a recent walk. Image attached showing a route that has generic discs but leads a little known route down the side of a farm on to the route with 4 pillbox among other things. People might not venture that way without the markets from the main road.
Who decides if the footpath is worthy enough? This forum shows we can't trust voter common sense, even from those who contribute a lot of time to voting.
A genric footpath sign is a pathetic submission and should instantly rejected.
"The object is mass-produced, generic, or not visually unique or interesting."
It fails under all 3 and as such is just 1* trash
Totally. Way back toward the beginning of this thread someone said "the fact that these markers are waypoints in game answers the question, they are eligable" couldn't be more wrong. Just because they were approved doesn't make them eligable, means wayfare bots/sub standard reviewers got it through. I'm totally on the side of generic mass produced none interesting object.
@NianticGiffard @NianticAaron we're kind of split here and need some actual concrete answers. Any comments to make?
split opinions are not unusual where interpretation and judgement calls are made.
There are differences here but I don’t think you can then leap to a conclusion that it means the submissions were approved by bot accounts or sub standard reviewers.
Just because there is a difference of opinion does not make it right to call those whose judgement is different sub standard, it’s a comment that is not needed.
(sorry, wrong thread)
At the risk of being called a troll again over this issue, I give you the Niantic word on Waypoints:
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.
As I've said before, Niantic could remove a lot of these very types of threads for the forum, and make nominating and reviewing much easier if they were to make a specific judgement on a few, often country specific issues like these standard yellow UK "Public Footpath" arrows or the Australian "survey marker discs". Taken to the extreme, why bother reviewing, just allow anyone to submit anything as a Waypoints and poopulate the whole work with POIs. Niantic have side they don't want to do that, but they could make some things easier with just a bit of help while still keeping the flexibility. They do it for K-12 schools and PRP nominations, why not something very defined and particular like this.
This is a wonderful argument against the original OP's ask "Confirm these markers are Ineligible". While there are things that are deemed ineligible, by Niantic's own words; in black and white; these markers are not ineligible, they are in that grey area. They are open to interpretation. If they get accepted, good; if they get rejected, that's fine too.
Regardless of the number of them, how generic they may look, they are not inherently ineligible. Many of them would be considered quality submissions, given the proper information and formatting.
Clarification on markers (by country) by Niantic is more important than most general POI imo because often they are remote and not often seen or submitted because of that. At the same time they encourage a lit of walking, exploring and outdoor activity which are key primary objectives according to Niantic.
As well as country differences, another problem is the area you are in/submitting in can also play a part in if something goes through or not. Someone in a rural area might be more likely to vote a marker through compared to someone who lives in a town. Making the issue worse is some wayfarer chat groups where ultimately the strongest voices/characters often causes the rest of the group to vote the same way as how they think something should be voted on, even if it's wrong. Or as a group, a consensus cones about that is wrong but then becomes a rule for how to vote by all those in the group .
So more input in clarification is needed to fix Intentional and unintentional bias
These markers are not "in the grey area"
They are nothing more than just a sign that says you have permission to walk here.
In and of themselves they are uninteresting, generic, boring and pure 1* trash.
They are not trail markers but a generic signs
You may have a trail on part of a footpath, but in that instance you would also have a specific trail marker as well.
These simply mean you can walk here, that is all.
People should stop trying to ingest every single pathetic sign into Wayfarer the "collective goal to map the most interesting local places" is being left behind in favour of more more more more who cares of the quality MORE.
While I do agree that generic footpath markers aren't acceptable, let's not pretend niantic cares about only rhe kost interesting things anymore, remember the guy in charge of wayfarer said dog waste bins could be eligible
Depressingly you're right.
Considering appeal and criteria clarification details are done by the same team that love to now bring you dog waste bins as POIs its a depressing state of affairs.
The above quote of interesting POIs still gives me some hope that somewhere buried inside Niantic someone does still care about quality, but the sad fact of the matter seems to be that whoever said that is a lonely voice in a chorus of people going "more more who cares if its trash more more, it brings us in money, more more more"
Hi all! Please note that route markers on a trail area are considered trail markers. It is not necessary that the route markers on a trail area should always contain the trail name.
In case the trail route markers are placed on a street/road, then definitely it should have trail names.
Thats fair enough, can you just clarify that a trail is seperate to a generic footpath that leads across a field ?
Sure thing! Generic route/road signs should be placed on the street without any trail names whereas the trail route signs will be on the trail area/open green space area.