Question about trailmarks for eligibility
DenTisse1986-PGO
Posts: 3 ✭✭
Hello there wayfarer community. I have a question thats on my mind for the past few days.
I get lately a lot of nominations of trail markers for walking and bycicle. Though it should be valid wayspots because they influence walking etc , working on health , discovering intresting spots in your neighbourhood or somewhere else.
In Belgium and other country's there are a lot of walking gathering points. Diffrent walking routes come together at that point to navigate to a new number
This are to my oppinion good wayspots. Now though there are also other trailmarkers that lead to the gathering spots
Those trail markers are scattered around near intersection points , those or more common to spot and to nominate , what on my oppinion is a mass productive poi, also its hard for a nominator, those are eager to become nominated as a double.
What is all of your oppinion?
Thanks for taking your time for reading , submitting your reactions.
Comments
The first one: always great candidates. But only one wayspot for each node number. If there are 3 markers in different streets at the same intersection, only one should be a wayspot. There should only be 1 "De Merode - Node 13" wayspot.
The second one: depends on how many have already been approved for the same trail in the area. If there are 3 markers at the same intersection, one wayspot is enough, and the others are duplicates. If there is enough distance between them, multiple wayspots should be okay.
Hi community,
I agree that the first is a valid wayspot. They are unique, and the node location (probably at a crosspoint) should be a wayspot, not the sign, as there are up to four signs, dependent of where you arrive at the node location.
The simple direction sign, as to where to walk or ride to get to the above mentioned node location, should not be a wayspot. For the simple reason that those are not unique, so violating a basic condition for a good wayspot. I have several such, IMHO silly, wayspots in my little village. As they all look the same, it is difficults to see which is which in the Ingress scanner: so this is another reason why this should never have been approved.
What is even worse, some of them, have more or less or even exactly the same title. How inconvenient
For last examples I found 7 wayspots for the same marker within a 2km range. (https://goo.gl/maps/FDL59EDZmnGtKh4z7)
https://intel.ingress.com/intel?ll=51.119823,3.159978&z=17&pll=51.119823,3.159978
https://intel.ingress.com/intel?ll=51.117784,3.159454&z=17&pll=51.117784,3.159454
https://intel.ingress.com/intel?ll=51.115809,3.158765&z=17&pll=51.115809,3.158765
https://intel.ingress.com/intel?ll=51.110797,3.154471&z=17&pll=51.110797,3.154471
https://intel.ingress.com/intel?ll=51.108941,3.156263&z=17&pll=51.108941,3.156263
https://intel.ingress.com/intel?ll=51.10705,3.153765&z=17&pll=51.10705,3.153765
https://intel.ingress.com/intel?ll=51.104021,3.154135&z=17&pll=51.104021,3.154135
Seriously?
If you want, I have several more groups in the same area of identical markers. One marker "Krakkepad" has 10 wayspots in a square kilometer.
Now somebody should set this straight. I'll leave it up to Niantic to follow it's own rules.
This has been clarified enough. These are all great wayspots, whether you like it or not.
Rename them to include for example the street names so they are unique and you can distinguish them in you Ingress scanner. Problem solved.
I expected a civilised discussion about the application of the rules and recommendations.
The rules are that these are great wayspots. There is nothing to discuss.
I have proof of the opposite. First rejection criterium you ‘ll read here: https://wayfarer.nianticlabs.com/new/criteria/rejection
”Does not meet eligibility criteria
… The object is mass-produced, generic, or not visually unique …
I am awaiting an Niantic backed argument and proof. I am eager to learn from your provided information.
Clarification 1:
https://community.wayfarer.nianticlabs.com/discussion/comment/111961#Comment_111961
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.
List of examples referenced in clarification 2 by a forum user:
https://community.wayfarer.nianticlabs.com/discussion/comment/112676#Comment_112676
Clarification 2:
https://community.wayfarer.nianticlabs.com/discussion/comment/113993#Comment_113993
From RobWaudby's examples made on 11th September, "Acceptable" and "not sure on these" are correct to be acceptable.
With mass-produced, generic, or not visually unique, they mean things like the round blue signs with a bike or pedestrians, to show where the bike lane and/or sidewalk is.
Thank you.
Now I understand how it came to pass as acceptable. (I still think the argument is ridiculous , but hey, it is -not- just me).
I have dozens of trail signpost markers to go now. But I will rename the unique(!) main nodes of the bike trails ("fietsknooppunt" in Dutch) as such, to distinguish them from the many identical simple trail signpost markers. The latter need better identfyable titles. So yes, the problem will be solved in a year or two I think - if my edits are understood.
Stefaan.
I agree with you that most of these are poorly named in our country, as most nominators know they are eligible, but they don't understand what they are. So they submit them with poor titles and descriptions.
Anything that you call a trail marker is eligible. A sign is eligible. A disk is eligible. A mile marker is eligible. A directional sign that points to a trail is eligible. An emergency services marker is eligible. A bridge is eligible. A fence is eligible. A flag is eligible. An old stick is eligible. Graffiti is eligible. A tree is eligible. A rock is eligible. A tent is eligible. A stretch of mildly-distinguishable dirt is eligible. A beam of sunlight shining down upon a trail after a rainstorm is eligible. A Little Free Library in someone’s front yard, as long as it is renamed Little Free Trail Marker, is eligible. If anybody calls it a trail marker, it’s a 5* nomination, period. Nothing else to discuss.
The way I resolve the conflict between "generic" and Giffard's clarification on trail markers is that the markers are a substitute for the trail. This is like a sign is a substitute for a park. The park sign may be mass-produced and boring, but the park is still a great place to exercise, socialize, and possibly explore. The trail marker may be mass-produced and boring, but the trail is still a great place to exercise and possibly explore.
Hmm, i have been rejecting all trail markers and other signs lately, since the criteria say a way spot must be something worthwhile visiting. The trail marker itself isn't very attractive. And a lot of my own, far better, nominations have been rejected for lesser reasons, so i do not see why walking in a street following trail markers is different from walking in a street following other signs or benches.
Who reads the thousands of clarifications to find out that the criteria have been altered in some posts? Niantic should change the criteria then. Also, where in the criteria is said, that a trail marker close to another trail marker is a double, when it isn't the same trail marker? (since walking and cycling paths can have different signs on the same spot). There should be a criteria, no way spot within x metres of another or something then. In big cities, there are lots of way spots very close to another, and those aren;t seen as doubles.
"the criteria say a way spot must be something worthwhile visiting"
Where does it say that? The markers themselves are not worth visiting. The trail they mark is.
"the criteria have been altered"
They haven't. Trail markers have been 5* candidates since the OPR Candidate Action Guide.
"where in the criteria is said, that a trail marker close to another trail marker is a double"
That post is over a year old, before the clarifications I posted later. It wasn't said specifically, it was and still is my interpretation of the criteria. As a trail marker is basically a placemarker for the trail, I interpret two trailmarkers for the same trail at the same intersection as representing the same section of the trail, and thus duplicates. But that is just my interpretation.
"the criteria say a way spot must be something worthwhile visiting"
Where does it say that? The markers themselves are not worth visiting. The trail they mark is.
"the criteria have been altered"
They haven't. Trail markers have been 5* candidates since the OPR Candidate Action Guide.
Well, no where in these criteria there is mention of a trail marker. A trail indeed is a nice way spot, but since those are impossible to point most of the time, we need other spots. The point is, why is a trail marker eligible, while a bench on a nice route isn't? Walking in a smelly and dirty city following some tiles with nice colours is marked fine, but walking in a fresh and beautiful village with lots of forests and nice views isn't, since there aren't any "trail markers". It really is too subjectif.
What is the OPR ?
OPR was the ingress way of doing wayspots - Operation Portal Recon. I think I would be right in saying that it was OPR that really opened the doors for submissions on a large scale.
There will always be things that culturally can feel out of kilter but that’s what we have. The criteria provide a framework for deciding on individual items. It does not contain an exhaustive list of eligible things.
The main point of trails is under the category of encourages exercise and quite often they also are about seeing specific interesting things along the way. I don’t think anyone could deny that following a trail encourages exercise. The markers help achieve that. If a case is made then it is not impossible to get a bench as a wayspot on a trail.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I love going to a rural area and following a trail. But I also live in a city. Locally trails have been developed to encourage exercise. I can easily get to these without creating a lot of car pollution and a much smaller carbon footprint. There are lots of things that people in cities don’t see if you don’t get out and walk. I was exploring yesterday around a trail and found some interesting objects - hopefully they will become wayspots 🤔
We need to put aside our own bias when assessing wayspots - some modern sculpture leaves me cold, but it’s 5*.
Beauty is in the of the reviewer:D
Maybe one day they might even accept that metal signs with a trail name , omahgawd a metal sign... the horror, are ok too.
A great place for exercise
A place you'd go to get some fresh air, stretch your legs, or exercise. Places that encourage walking, exercising, and enjoying public spaces. Or something that teaches or encourages us to be our healthiest selves.
Examples of Wayspot categories
As you said, a trail is hard to pinpoint, that is why trail markers, and other objects such as mile markers, trail bridges, benches, ... can all be used as placemarkers for the trail.
If that bench is located on an official trail, it can be used as a placemarker for the trail, just like a trailmarker can. But since many reviewers have to be spoon fed to understand the criteria, it might be hard to get a bench on a trail accepted.
Niantic only makes the criteria, not the trails. If the trails in your area are through smelly and dirty cities, and not in beautiful villages and forests with nice views, that is on your local governments, not Niantic.
OPR is Operation Portal Recon. It was the predecessor of Wayfarer, when it was only used by Ingress agents, before Pokémon Go had access to it.
The trail markers may not be very attractive, but they're worth visiting for exercise, even if the trail they're on is also not attractive. "Explore" isn't the only eligibility criteria. You also have to keep in mind "excercise" and "socialize".
A wayspot is a wayspot, an ingress portal is a portal, and PoGo I don't play. Still one clear and unambiguous acceptance rule nobody uses, as it is ammunition to stop this silly discussion once and for all: A wayspot should be visually unique. And most markers are visually identical, except for the arrow which points left, right or straight ahead.
https://wayfarer.nianticlabs.com/new/criteria/rejection
Now exercise and socialize this.
Stefaan
It would be nice if you look up what "visually unique" means for Wayfarer, all the way back to the OPR days.
Visual Uniqueness
Does the nomination stand out from its surroundings? Wayspots that are easy to locate and visually distinct from the buildings and objects nearby make high-quality Wayspots and should be rated highly. If you think the nomination looks bland and will be hard to locate, give it a lower rating.
https://wayfarer.nianticlabs.com/new/help/reviewing-a-wayspot-nomination
Visual uniqueness does not mean what you think it means. These markers are designed to be "visually unique". Otherwise it would be hard to follow the trail.
You can continue to vote as you wish, but don't come crying when your rating drops, or you get a warning mail.
Visual Unique, means:does it stand out from other wayspots? Could it be confused with another wayspot? Your interpretation is conveniently wrong IMHO. Having to describe the location or mention the address to make it distinguishable, says it all.
Your threat at the end is a disrespectful try to win an argument.
It's not my interpretation, it is a literal quote from the Wayfarer site, with a link provided.
Which link? From the wayfarer site or the wayfarer community site?
https://wayfarer.nianticlabs.com/new/help/reviewing-a-wayspot-nomination
OK, you are right, your interpretation could be applied. This text uses "surroundings".
The rating process text (with the STARS) I know uses "area":
"A visually unique nomination should not be something that is common in the area". Depends on what you understand as "area". Where I live I have counted at least 18 identical markers in a square mile area.
Now we are getting somewhere.
You can definitely give them 1* for uniqueness if you like. That's not the same as rejection.
Both the Visually Unique and Historic and Cultural parts of the review have always caused confusion amongst reviewers mostly because of Niantic's inability/indifference at clarifying or updating it.
While I'm moaning... the Title and Description bit is garbage too.
What do you want me to vote on the Title or Description?
Why do you want me to vote on something that doesn't even have to be included?