It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.
Sign In with Ingress Sign In with Pokémon GO
In the UK we have literally thousands of these footpath signs that are all over and just designate a place you can walk, think of it as just being the equivalent of a sidewalk across a field, they arent specific trails, just a footpath, the same you get outside of a house, McDonalds, along side a standard road etc, but lacking the concrete.
I'm confused. My town has a 6 km long named walking route running trough it. It uses mostly roads, so all but 1 of the trail markers are placed on a road. The trail has a name, but it is not on the markers. The markers can be identified because they are an arrow in the colors of the town. They are unique for the trail. Isn't that enough? Why go back to mandatory trail names? Trail names don't change the purpose of the marker.
In your case the coloured arrow would in essence be a proxy for the name.
The name / colour is being used to just differentiate it from a normal, you can walk this way sign, to a sign for an actual trail.
Can an identifying symbol be a replacement for the trail name, or does it have to be a name in text form? I.e. a unique icon/official branding/logo of one particular trail on its trail/route markers. (I do not mean colored arrows, pictograms of a walking person etc. on their own, but rather a unique logo that only represents one particular trail)
Example of what I believe @bilde2910 is referring to. (Each of these icons represents a particular named walking trail).
Yes a symbol would be acceptable, if it's the unique identification mark for the trail.
As above, a name is there on a trail sign to only distinguish a trail sign from a generic path sign, so like the coloured arrow above the symbol is a proxy for the trail name.
What your looking at, is a trail in the woods. On the tree on right side there is, whats called, a bluemarker. The bluemarker tells you where a trail in the woods are. What it really is, is just a brush stroke of blue paint.
In Norway, this is common way of showing where trails are.
It's a marker, telling where a trail is. According to what has been said in this forum thread, any marker that shows where a trail is, are allowed.
So this is according to some people eligible to become a Wayspot.
Please, for the love of <insert name of whatever>, tell me this is isn't eligible
That still isnt really an answer, basically, the "public footpaths" will 99/100 times not be on a road, but will be on essentially dirt paths through forests or farms, things like that, so they could meet your definition of trail markers and not generic signs, but really these ones are generic signs, they arent like the ncn which was made to exercise and explore, these are done to show where you are allowed to walk (though not in Scotland, we have the law that let's us walk where we want so long as its not in restricted areas)
(Disclaimer: U.S. reviewer whose exposure to these markers is primarily from discussions like these.)
I take @NianticGiffard's response to mean something along the lines of how I already think about the issue: it's about how the particular path is intended to be used. It's not entirely about what the path is made of or what the surroundings look like. If the path is primarily a way to get from point A to point B, it's probably not a "trail." If it's primarily for exercise and/or recreation, it's probably a "trail." Unfortunately, that is going to be a subjective judgment in some cases.
Thanks for the response. Still quite confused/concerned that in this post you seem to suggest that a route marker (public footpath could be considered a route) if placed in a field can be considered eligable, even though they are all the same across the country and exist in huge numbers. If you consider them a trail then prepare to see nothing but these generic markers in wayfarer soon.
I agree with @Gazzas89-PGO on this one @NianticGiffard , this hasn’t made it clearer.
In the UK, we have Public Footpath markers all over. It’s a signage to say “Yes, you can walk here without trespassing on private land, thus breaking the law”. These are often signs/arrows that say “Public Footpath”. They would not be sought out to be walked through, or overly planned as a route for the average Wayfarer explorer.
Can we just get a simple yay or nay on them?
I feel like there has been a breakdown in understanding here.
Like @Theisman-ING says I can find thousands, even more than ERII postboxes, of simple arrow markers that are not part of a specific trail.
My understanding is marker on a 'official trail' whether it has a name, symbol etc is acceptable.
Marker without any identification would need to be supported by proof the 'official trail' ?
So my take on that is both the discs in my previous posts acceptable as they are on rambling routes through fields, besides farms/green areas etc rather than on roads, which is what I was saying from the start.
Will voters who disagreed now vote the way Niantic had asked on these at least?
Just need Niantic to reiterate the 3* for location that can't be confirmed and all will be well in the world again, almost ;p
I think the general gist of it is of its's showing a route through fields or a green area, it doesn't have to have a trail name or logo on the marker for it to be accepted.
The fact its showing a route taking you off the beaten track is enough for it to be elegible, trail name or not. It's marking the route(s) you can take across countryside.
No just being a route through a field isnt enough.
It needs to be on a trail, not just some made up route or random path across a field, an actual trail.
Some clarification, but some extra confusion.
NianticGiffard Posts: 8,628Niantic › admin April 20
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.
Reading the Niantic replies, it appears that we now have to look and see if the route is a "trail" or not. I would go with the opinion that a standard "Public Footpath" over a field is not a trail, it is, as people have said, just an indication you can cut across the field without trespassing.
So, what defines a "trail" (in the UK at least) from a "Public Footpath". I would say that it needs some "Official" recognition in terms of mapping of the route and a trail name. If you look at the UK Long Distance Walkers website you can find plenty of details. https://ldwa.org.uk/ldp/members/search_by_path.php
So, are we back to the "named trail" argument again? Yes and no. As far as I can see, most official trails are marked up with the name of the trail and / or the official logo for the trail. That's good enough for me to say "yes, this is an official trail". A lot of the time, these trails run along public footpaths for part or all of their route - we don't have any that I know of where some organisation has said " here is a brand new trail we have invented that cuts across the countryside on this route so off you go", it just would not be feasable to do this in the UK. So, provided the section of Public Footpath carries a "trail marker" with either the name or the logo thats eligible, if it's just the yellow triangle thare is no proof that it is an official trail, it's just a footpath.
No doubt I will get multiple disagrees for this post, plus a series of ones saying "Niantic no longer require a trail name on a marker". Fair enough, but that still comes back to how we define a trail, or separate a trail from what isessentially just a walkway equivalent to the sidewalk in towns, people are allowed to use it. Without some indication that it is an "Official" trail, I will continue to vote as I do now. That is where my judegement of the waypoint nomination is excercised.
Again, Niantic could settle this ongoing argument by being definitive about whether the generic UK "Public Footpath" marker is eligible or not. No - and the argument is settled. Yes - and the argument is settled and lightship database for the UK risks being flooded with a minimum of 250,000, and more likely 1,000,000 "Public Footpath" waypoints.
@NianticGiffard - are you able to be definitive or not please?
I really can't see what the problem is and why people in the UK are still arguing about this.
Uk trails have trail markers with names / symbols on them and they are in addition to a footpath sign, so in the UK you get both.
If theres no trail marker sign then it is highly likely that it is not an official trail and just a generic footpath.
Markers on trails are valid.
So if it is a standard footpath sign, without the accompanying trail marler sign, then it is not a trail just a common path, and so not a valid candidate.
People will take from Giffard’s response whatever they want to take from it.🤔
I for one don’t think there is a simple answer as this a good example of differences in appearance and practice on a global basis - covering areas that non populated all the way through to dense sprawling conurbations.
It would a massive undertaking for Niantic to “rule” on a local areas practise in devising and marking possible routes. And in the end that is not helpful.
Discussions here are naturally driven by local experience are too diverse to make much sense, and we go round in circles.
Perhaps key underlying principles we should consider on a local basis are about encouraging exercise and exploration. Perhaps more reviewers should be taking longer to consider the submission in a local context.
Its a case of applying judgement.
Those worried about the number of new waypoints countryside footpath markers could bring, it's not really for wayfarer users to decide how many of anything is too many. It should play no part in your thinking or voting.
In the comparison with postboxs, which are down one in 5 streets in most places, the majority of public footpath markers I come across are on countryside walks/rambling walks, where you find a few to let you know directions you can go being that you are in the middle of nowhere.
Niantic have mentioned markers in green areas/fields which it seems to me covers these at least. I don't care about ones near streets personally and don't care if it's deemed they are acceptable or not. But will follow Niantics wishes when voting
I'm personally not worried about the numbers. I'd like to know what I can and can't submit though.
I have a large nature reserve nearby me which has footpaths, bridleway etc. The paths are not official trails, although I'm still not sure what qualifies something as an 'official trail'.
It has markers like this, unnamed and not part of an official trail. They are markers in green open spaces though
You know what we need ?
A Trailmarker-O-meter !
A marker with the trail name on the trail <- Excellent
A marker with the trail name on a street <- Good
A marker with no trail name on the trail <- Good
A marker with no trail name on an open green space area <- Good enough
A marker with no trail name on the street <- Not Good
A sticker/paint/handmade marker <- ?
If it helps, in my local park, we have "Glasgow healthwalk" trails, ive been submitting them, they are coloured arrows, ive gotten about 75% accepted and got one through in appeal
Thanks, I guess I've got 450 new things to submit...
You understand what Niantic have said exactly. Im Sure others have but are arguing the case against what Niantic have said because they don't want to vote that way.
Even when Niantic clarify it, some voters think they know better.
This is a POI and yours looks much cleaner ;)
I bet this POI makes steam come out the ears of voters who don't want to take on Niantics clarifications on these posts
I'll be glad to pitch in for a clearer view. Please check our stance on the below scenarios:
a) A marker with the trail name on the trail <- Excellent (Correct)
b) A marker with the trail name on a street <- Good (Correct)
c) A marker with no trail name on the trail <- Good (Correct)
d) A marker with no trail name on an open green space area <- Good enough (Correct)
e) A marker with no trail name on the street <- Not Good (Correct)
For your query on a sticker/paint/handmade marker, I think you're referring to this kind of marker: https://us.v-cdn.net/6032079/uploads/YIZASAJVWYGP/yellow-hiking-trail-marker-pointing-260nw-2093526883.jpg Trail routes also take the pedestrian path of an open space/field.
Our stance: If it is legit, these are acceptable. If it is manipulated by placing fake markers then it violates our policy which may lead to appropriate actions against the submitter.
Let’s hope that this brings the arguments to a stop 🤞
Can you add this somewhere on the Wayfarer Help pages so that we don’t get tons of links back to here.
So these signs… along the side of a road, pointing down the road are ineligible, right?
But if it’s on the side of the road pointing across the fields, ie it’s the start of the “open space” footpath, is “good enough”?