Live in Wayfarer 3.1 is a new set of acceptance criteria! Please browse the information in this category with caution as it is in reference to the previous review guidelines. To learn more about the new criteria, see here: https://niantic.helpshift.com/a/wayfarer/
Answers
I couldn't pass it as a marker under the criteria as it stands. If there was a start board with more information about the park trail that might be a possibility though.
I would accept it, but I understand the desire to have a specifically named trail instead of a generically named health walk.
Your rating is based on what material the sign is made of?? Why are people making up their own rules? Unless Niantic specifically gives preferential treatment to a specific material, you really shouldn't discriminate one over another based on your own idea of which material deserves a higher rating.
Because some people don't like them. Ignore them and review correctly, hopefully their rating will suffer.
The number on the sign is not a Trail name, it is the number of a reference point. They do not reference any specific path or trail, just random points in a region. The name needs to be of a Trail, not for the single sign.
Hikers look beforehand where they want to go and then plot their own path.
Nah, no information sign, it's just a load of these markers around the park (not the national park kind, the kind you would find in a city) that all say health walk and have coloured arrows, my guess being that the different colours are to signify different trails to follow .... I should also add that I'm using trail loosely, its paths around the park and these posts are on them, so really it's a made up trail round paths
That's simply incorrect, knooppunten are put at strategic crossroad of bike/pedestrian-friendly axis, they're not randomly distributed. When going from one knooppunt to the next, you're expected to take a specific path. There are reference maps to help you figure out where to go, like this one: https://www.fietsnet.be/routeplanner/default.aspx . It means that there is a unique path you're expected to take between two adjacent knooppunten which, inversely, means that two adjacent knooppunten defines a unique path.
I would agree with you if the knooppunten had only their own number on them, but because they have their number and the next one in the network, they do name a specific trail. For instance, the two knooppunten "Zuid-Dijleland#116" and "Zuid-Dijdeland#115", by being either ends of a well-defined path, constitute a distinctive designation for said path. It means that *together* they can arguably considered a name for the trail. It's like in geometry, you can name a line segment (e.g. [AB]) by the points at its extremities (point A and point B).
I agree that it is a shame. It seems, logically, that these sorts of wayspots would serve the exact purpose for which they should be intended. Sometimes these are the only possible anchors for sections of historic and scenic trails. Having them as POI’s would encourage people to explore these historically and visually significant areas by encouraging them to go farther or take new paths. My impression is that’s exactly what a good POI should do. It’s unfortunate that the guidelines don’t seem to match the intended purpose, in this instance.
the system, overall, seems designed to exacerbate the urban-rural inequality. In scenic but remote areas, that already have a POI drought, these sorts of guidelines make it difficult to build up those areas, while it is easier to build up areas that are already POI-dense.
The name on it is not the name of a trail, it's the name of the region where the reference point is.
You are also not forced to follow them from one number to the next, you could go from number 5 to 52 directly if you felt like it.
The website you provided even says it clearly:
"Create your own cycling route", meaning it is not a fixed trail, so there is no individual name and they shouldn't be accepted.
Not to mention all the footbridges that are merely culverts and at best connect a parking lot to something else
I'm not making up my own rule - I still accept them. 1* is reject 2* + is accept. You are supposed to use judgement in your assessment not just 5* everything that is listed as acceptable. Metal signs are more mass-produced (they are done on a machine) than wooden ones (made by a person) so I score lower.
This will be my last reply because I begin to think you're willfully missing my point.
Each number is unique in a region, so with two knooppunten and a region name defines an unique trail. And the fact you can skip punten or take an alternate route than the recommended ones is irrelevant since you wouldn't be on the 'official' path. Knooppunten are placed at intersections of bicycle/pedestrian friendly roads, those are the ones you're supposed to take and the ones typically highlighted on support resources. This goes for any trail really, you're never forced to follow the indicated path, but then you're not on the trail. The "Create your own cycling route" doesn't refer to the fact you can go wherever you want, but that you combine multiple trails to make your own route.
2 star is not accept, 2 star is still reject, 3 star is the lowest possible accept and that's only if more people voted higher. And the material used is not in the guidelines at all, a trail marker is a trail marker, be it wood, metal, plastic, doesnt matter. Oh and I'd say theres a lot more wooden trail markers than metal, so which one is more mass produced?
Where's your source that 2* is reject? The algorithm is unknown to everyone outside Niantic.
What they do way is the score you give is across the categories you assess a nomination on not just on your initial main assessment. I may well be 2* on the main category but score really high on the other categories which will help the nomination overall or I may 2* across the board which will probably not help it. My observation as a nominator is that things get rejected by receiving a certain number of 1* reviews.
I don't know where you are from but in the UK where I am there are a lot of mass produced metallic signs with trail name stickers (also mass produced). In Niantic's core guidelines, "Generic street signs qualify as mass-produced objects" so I give 2* for generic metal signs with a sticker.
This isn't because I don't like metal trail markers-there's one about 50m from my house (nearest wayspot is 200m) and when I nominated it got it quickly rejected for not meeting criteria. That's not because anyone was 2* ing it, it was because it was being 1*'d by people who don't like trail markers.
I'm comfortable with my approach and have been very open about it. If there's a good metal marker I would mark it highly. I haven't seen any.
I'll give my home trail marker another go and let you know how I get on if that's ok?
This is what the guidelines say:
Rating Scale
You will be asked various questions about a nomination and answer by rating on a scale of one to five stars. In general, use the following guidelines when deciding how to vote:
When you answer "Should this be a Wayspot?" with a 1 star rating, you will not be required to answer the other questions and can move to the next nomination.
To me this means:
5*: I am sure the guidelines say it is valid.
4*: I think the guidelines say it is valid, but I am not sure.
3*: I don't know.
2*: I think it is not valid, but I am not sure.
1*: I am sure it is not valid.
Niantic, they used to say if you're rating was going bad then use 4 star instead of 5 or 2 instead of 1, 1 and 5 are the extremes and 4 and 2 are accept and reject respectively. What do you think if got are unsure put 3 star? Why would they say the neutral option when 2 is accept?
I'm from the uk, I've seen much more wooden posts as trail markers than metal ones. I could literally go to a park near me and see about 40 in the park, yet I've got an actual trail down the road for me and on the entire trail, which is a good 15 miles theres about 10 metal markers on it, which one sounds mass produced there? There is no guideline to material. But I do admit people do reject metal ones more, but that's because the metal ones look like street signs, it's not because of the trail, it's because they dont reason the submission properly.
Oh, and theres people who have had rejection with no reason given, while this hasn't been fully confirmed, its suspected it's because it only got 2 or 3 stars since 1 star requires a reason put in
But nobody knows. And just because they say that's what to do doesn't mean that is how the system works.
I'm still happy with my approach. Here are some examples of what I've done and my own nominations (accept:reject) if any:
No trail name 1*
Metal post with "Public footpath" mass produced sign with a sticker on with a trail name 2* (0:1)
Metal sign with actual trail name 3* (1:0)
Wooden stile with trail name sticker on a plastic badge 3* (0:1)
Wooden sign post with mechanically engraved trail name 4*
Metal cycle sign with trail name sticker 5* (because it was the same trail as at the bottom of my road and hopefully will set a precedent and obviously I'm a hippocrate when I can benefit - oh and there are 6 of these within 500m of my house) (0:1)
You haven't said what your approach is. Do you 5* every trail marker?
If it has a trail name: Yes, always 5*.
If it meets the criteria (trail name) it's always 4 or 5 for me as an overall rating - generally 5, but a badly faded/partially obscured one might get 4, or if the submission is generally weak (poor but passable photo, poor but passable description etc.) I might drop a star. The overall rating is supposed to be an overall impression. Personally I wouldn't adjust stars on materials used.
Spot on.
They'd soon start to moan if we said brick built churches were mass produced and we'd only accept stone ones! Statues made from metal are not valid only marble ones. Made up rules to justify their petty extra rules.
February 2019
Q42: There still is a lot of confusion about the star ratings in OPR, hypothetically, if every reviewer rates every section 2*, would that portal be accepted or rejected?
A42: I was told that, “If all reviewers rated all items 2* it would be rejected. Not all answers are considered equally so just the low safety rating would be a good reason for a rejection.”
--
And just to add to other posters, trail marker with a name 4* or 5*, material used doesn't matter.
Material used does matter when you have reason to believe a "trail marker" could be a fake.
When we talk about material, at least from my side, it's the ones thay look like street signs for metal, they shouldn't be marked down sue to being metal
It's Goldilocks but she doesn't want any porridge.
You probably could make fake a wooden sign relatively easily with a router but I doubt many people have easy access to sheet aluminium for metal signs or the plastic and tools to replicate discs. I can't imagine many people have access to a professional vinyl printer of the standard you's need to create a convincing sticker either. Of course any photo can lie - it wouldn't be that difficult to produce something equally convincing from a photo editing package.
In the UK Natural England encourage landowners, Parish and Town Councils to enhance the waymarking of paths, providing guidance on best practice, and a booklet. Should a sign produced by a landowner be voted on any differently to one produced by the Highways Authority? Niantic's guidance doesn't give any restrictions on this...
You shouldn't be 2* trail signs if they have the name, it will lead to a rejections or limbo for the submission. 3-5 them based on quality. If they don't have the name then reject it (1* or 2*)
So posted this in general, but I feel the comments on there are relevant to the conversation.
I'll second this. It also needs to be stated that judging a trailhead sign based on material (so long as the submission can be confirmed to be legitimate) may discriminate against parks/municipalities that don't have the budget or equipment to custom craft "fancy" artisan style signage. Think small town with minimal budget, which has to go through the maintenance shop that assembles their street signs. The choice of that material says nothing about the validity of the trail as a valid wayspot.
I just think you're misunderstanding the criteria. It's not about the trail mark being unique (I know the Knooppunten have unique numbers).
The criteria says they need to be part of a named trail - Knooppunten are simply not part of named trails, they are reference points people use to invent their own routes. They can follow them in order if they want, create drawings while moving around from one to the next etc.
But none of them are Trail Markers, as they are not part of a specific Trail.
Exactly, while the discussion of "What constitutes as a Trail Marker" can go on and on, the material should never be a point of discussion.
Wayfarer isn’t just about creating portals and poke stops, it’s about helping Niantic build its library of real world locations.
The first question is not “Is this eligible?” like some kind of exam on your knowledge of the guidance, it’s “In your best judgement, would the nomination make a good addition?”
The only rule for Trail Markers is to reject (1*) those with no trail name. Just because “Trail markers …[are] acceptable if they have a trail name on them” does not mean that all trail markers with trail names are 5*.
Judgement is more than just matching things to guidance - it is perfectly reasonable to use all factors you can to make that judgement be it the size, material, perceived artistic merit or any other relevant facet.
Some trail markers ARE better than others and yes some churches are better than other churches. York Minster is better than your local parish church, a Norman stone church is better than a modern brick building, that’s better than a corrugated metal hut and that’s better than a portakabin. I’d judge that any church is a better addition than any trail marker.