Trail markers
I'm new and i am confused about these kind of trail markers this is in my country belgium
Should i accept things like these because i already saw a few of them
'zuid-dijleland' is an area
Best Answers
-
PoMaQue-PGO Posts: 252 ✭✭✭✭
1* for Knooppunten, with reason "Does not meet criteria".
As mentioned by @TheFarix-PGO , they are not Trail Markers, but reference points.
They aren't part of a fixed Trail (so they have no name, only the overall region is mentioned), people use them to invent their own routes.
-
PORT2014-ING Posts: 88 ✭✭✭
Guidance is really clear on trail markers. No trail name then 1*. Trail name then 2* - 5*
Every trail marker I've seen, including the example is a combination of 2 mass produced objects, a metal or wooden post/sign and a plastic sticker or badge stuck or screwed on. My general rule is 2* - 3* the metal ones and 3* the wooden ones. Maybe 4* if it looks more interesting. If I ever come across a lovingly handcarved sign I would 5*. Yet to happen.
No trail name on this so 1*
Answers
These are Knooppunt or "Junction" signs are are not the same as trail markers. They only give the number of the next connected node or junction, but do not give names of specific trails. Displaying the trail name is a fundamental requirement for a trail marker to be eligible to differentiate it from simple distance markers or wayposts.
So if i see this do i need to give it 1 star or 2 star because i sometimes see that there are pokestops like this and i get confused 🤔
Existing wayspots aren't always good examples of what is and isn't eligible.
If they're not a named trail and just a generic public footpath marker, such as some in the UK, it's likely they're not eligible.
I would like niantic to revisit footpaths in the uk most have a lot of history behind the.. Most are actually older than the named trails and date back to before roads. There is a video that I saw on YouTube very recently that showed that there is a massive hunt at the moment to look for these footpaths as they will be given to farmers as part of there land if they haven't been registered.
The issues Ive had with submitting foot and cycle paths. Some have been rejected from what I understand because they are on lampposts and not wooden posts. Some because they don't say the name but instead have a train number. I'll research the number and put the name and route information on the submissions but regardless they get rejected.
Such a shame as they tend to make good stops in more rural areas and residential areas with little to no stops.
It does state in the criteria that if they have a number to reject them.
"Trailheads, trail markers, mile/distance markers, etc. - Acceptable, if they have a trail name on them. Simple mile markers along a trail with nothing other than a number should be rejected."
In regards to the markers on lamp posts, usually the trail markers are attached to a wooden post of post description, as opposed to a lamp post.
I'm curious to what the history of these public footpaths would be.
This is just one of many videos you can find on public footpaths but as the video explains they are very very only.
https://youtu.be/QC9B0NMQ_CE
But if you dont have the time to watch it basically says how old they are and have been used for a very long time even before roads as rights of way for the public to walk on. The land was always owned by the monarchy then when land was aloud to be bought, these rights of way was kept for the public to continue to be used for walking. Regardless of who owns the land we are aloud to walk on them. There is also another video that shows that there is a hunt at the moment by ramblers that are looking for forgotten footpaths as there is a time limit now that is set to run out which will mean the farms they run though can refuse the right to walk on.
You're confusing mile markers ( those in the description which are just saying how far you've traveled, 500m, 600m etc) with trail number four where all the markers say number 4. "Trail number 4" should really be as valid as "stream trail".
The "rights of way" signs are marking footpaths that have been in use in some cases for thousands of years. Probably lost in translation as I don't think the same thing exists in America, so they are distinguishing between sidewalks and trails. For us it's pavements and rights of way, some of which are named but all as valid as each other.
Unfortunately many people don't like them for some reason. For a game based on walking around your area, learning about rights of way which have existed for hundreds of years would seem a perfect fit.
I'm not confusing anything. In my town, there's an "Active Coast" trail to the north and south. Both have markers that has the Active Coast name on them as well as the distance traversed on the "trail".
If it just shows a number, without a trail name, it's not eligible.
I have no issue with approving markers for genuine named trails, however, accepting every post or plastic disc that says public footpath opens up the network for a flood of lower quality nominations. Bad enough with the postboxes and notice boards flooding the network without adding public footpath or bridleway markers to the network as well if they're not part of a named trail.
See I wouldn't have a problem with the footpaths or bridle ways as they are much older and historical than most named trails.
I mean technically they do meet more criteria than a named Trail being historical, encourage exercise, exploration and the story behind the of these are rights of way that the public do actually own and no monarchy has taken them away from the people is a kinda cool story.
How many named trails are there with the same story or as historical?
Most named trails are historic footpaths.
If every public right of way sign was eligible the game would be sunk under them. There's 140,000 miles of footpaths/bridleways/byways in England and Wales alone, with an average of 3-4 markers per mile, you'd be looking at an awful lot of near-identical submissions.
I accept there are some footpaths/bridleways that have historic significance (beyond just being old) that might not be named, but generally the most significant have been. I think allowing named trail markers, but not generic markers is a reasonable balance.
I dont disagree but literally the only difference between the two is 1 is named and the other isnt. There would be alot of rural communities that would benefit the acknowledgement
I agree functionally they are the same, but one is limited in number and one would potentially add over 500,000 similar wayspots just to England & Wales. You could also argue some roads have historic significance - near me is one of the first Roman Roads in the UK that still largely follows the original route, and was also used as a pilgrimage route, but I'm not convinced adding generic road signs would be a good idea.
A lot of reviewers don't like named trail markers as it is because they can easily add 50 odd similar wayspots to a small area. I don't think the balance the current ruling gives is bad, but I accept rural communities do suffer in all the games - they're very much biased towards those that live in big cities.
1* for Knooppunten, with reason "Does not meet criteria".
As mentioned by @TheFarix-PGO , they are not Trail Markers, but reference points.
They aren't part of a fixed Trail (so they have no name, only the overall region is mentioned), people use them to invent their own routes.
I'm sure alot of these really old footpaths are actually named. But it's because it has the footpaths disc and not the named trail is the only difference makes no sense to not have them in. We would see alot more but as they are mostly in rural communities they wouldn't come in all at once.
At the moment I'd be happy with everyone accepting all named trails and to stop looking for reasons why they aren't valid.
It is amusing to see the arguments against trail markers because they don't want to see loads of poi in the countryside. I'm not sure why it's great for cities to be invisible on maps of poi due to the sheer number of them, but rural areas need to be devoid of anything seemingly.
The Meriam-Webster dictionary defines name as:
a : a word or phrase that constitutes the distinctive designation of a person or thing.
b : a word or symbol used in logic to designate an entity
So arguably, the name of the trails are actually on this marker: "knooppunt#115-to-knooppunt#116", "knooppunt#115-to-knooppunt#72", "knooppunt#115-to-knooppunt#76". Those aren't conventional names, but they constitute a distinctive and unique designation for the trail.
I think Niantic's guideline is misinterpreted here;
Trailheads, trail markers, mile/distance markers, etc. - Acceptable, if they have a trail name on them. Simple mile markers along a trail with nothing other than a number should be rejected.
For me, it should be understood as "any marker that uniquely identifies the path the player is on" because every country has its own way to highlight trails: some use names, some use numbers, some use symbols... but all those serve the same practical purpose. If you look at a trail marker and you can tell exactly on which path you're on with no possible confusion with any other trail in the country, then whatever is written on the marker can be considered the trail's name. The number part is what makes it confusing, but as I read it it's only referring to mile markers only giving a distance.
Guidance is really clear on trail markers. No trail name then 1*. Trail name then 2* - 5*
Every trail marker I've seen, including the example is a combination of 2 mass produced objects, a metal or wooden post/sign and a plastic sticker or badge stuck or screwed on. My general rule is 2* - 3* the metal ones and 3* the wooden ones. Maybe 4* if it looks more interesting. If I ever come across a lovingly handcarved sign I would 5*. Yet to happen.
No trail name on this so 1*
And what about a pictogram for example to a train station whith a picture of a train and the city would that be eglible?
For example can i nominate this or this
They look more like direction signs than trail markers. If there's not a trail name then they wouldn't be valid.
So a direction sign is always ineglible? I thought it could be eglible because of the pictogram since that isn't common
Generally direction signs are invalid unless they're historically significant or could be considered a piece of art. Mass produced direction signs are definitely invalid even with pictograms.
Even the second one isn't an option since i see a drawing and could be seen as art no?
If there's more than one sign like that and it's not been hand-painted specifically then it would fall under invalid mass-produced art (and to be honest calling art is a bit of a stretch).
There is only this sign that's leading to a natural start point for walking
Would I be right in saying this one isnt acceotable. It's not a named trail but it's a trail marker set up by the city council for walking round a park