Magic Recipe for hiking trail bridges?

Raachermannl-INGRaachermannl-ING Posts: 1,034 ✭✭✭✭✭

Waypoints in the nature like hiking trail markers are difficult to get approved, although they are fully eligible, especially since they are specifically enumerated under the big point of "A great place for exercise" within the new criteria, and even before the criteria rework there were cleary written guidelines and AMA answers about how to rate them ....

Same for hiking trail bridges. There are clear guidelines. As long as something is significant part of a named trail its fully eligible.

Nethertheless I got a set of three hiking trail bridges now 3 or 4 times rejected. I will submit them again and again, until they are accepted.

So lets start with an example - one is enough. Only the pictures were different, and the number in the texts.

Literally translated:

Title: Bridge #2 of theThree-Bridges-Trail

Description: One of the three bridges over the head creeks of the creek Tieftalbach, who are the namesakes for that hiking trail.

The supplemental information is in english, because Czech Republic is in reviewers range, only 30km away. So English is helpful here. The link stills works: ....

The picture shows a big swath of forest destruction due to a storm in 2018; it can be seen in the satelite view. The adress given to the reviewers even shows the hiking trails name, Dreibrückenweg.The hiking trail can be identified between the trees, and even the creeks can be partially seen. The red exclamation marks are the bridges locations.

So with a little bit of reading my information the locations can be easily verified, only by the given names:

Tieftalbach - the creeks name, literally translates to deep/steep valley creek.

Dreibrückenweg - Three-bridges-Trail

So the hiking trail follows the mountainsides of that valley with the creek. The creek is named in google maps too. Here a view with less zoom, to show you the valley:

Red marked here evrything, that is named Dreibrückenweg. The waypot at the beginning of the red line is a trail marker, where the biggest sign is the sign for this trail:,12.681915&z=17&pll=50.651589,12.681915

For bridge No 1 and possibly No 2 it could be in the duplicates list.

So the state of Dreibrückenweg: that's the name of this part of a bigger hiking trail network. Looking at the smaller green markers there, you will see lots of small white-yellow, white-green, and white-blue symbols. Those are symbols for different region crossing trails; this style of hiking trail markers is usual in Eastern Germany. So Dreibrückenweg is the name for ~6km through these forest, and its used by lots of other bigger named trails, for example "Historische Salzstraße".

Given Rejection Reasons:

most of the time "not fitting criteria"; only once "mismatched location"; very often "bad/blurry photo", very often "natural feature". So obviously the people don't know the criteria and/or how to use the rejection reasons...

My only statement to those: bad photo ..... I cant really improve the pictures. In the part of the forest, where the bridges are, there are mainly spruce trees. Under high grown spruce trees the ground is acidic - so its brownish during evry season there. So nice bright green surrounding the object, that could convince the reviewer on first glance, is impossible. I made the pictures during autumn, because then there is the least amount of covering leaves and so on given. Autumn like brownish color is there all the year ....


So now the big question:

(also for @NianticCasey-ING and friends)

How to compress all this information into the given amount of characters?

The guideline advice in the supplemental information is totally necessary, sadly. I can't do the whole submission in english, because the German names are needed. So there is not much space left for further information ..... the only way I see is using a collage as supporting picture, but that could cause trouble too, because lots of PoGo-reviewers would see it as abuse, because they dont know, that Ingress has galery access ...

So I don't know what to, except submitting it again and again and again and again and again, ending up permanently with 3 submission slots less ....

.... or someone presents the secret recipe for Krabby Patties 😋


  • ZwartMike-PGOZwartMike-PGO Posts: 11 ✭✭

    The big thing for me is that a Pokéstop/portal has to be something worth visiting. Something unique or cool or weird that i won't stumble upon a lot. (Foot)bridges are way too common to my personal liking. Cool that they are part of a trail and stuff, but i can go to any nearby town and find a (foot)bridge. They don't make me want to go out of my way to visit them. I can't speak for all the people that review, as different people have different tastes, but i personally only give high ratings to things and places that are either unique looking (like statues) and things that serve as well-traveled gathering points (such as playgrounds). Not things that i can stumble upon every 15 minutes.

  • Raachermannl-INGRaachermannl-ING Posts: 1,034 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited January 2021

    It should be something between totally unimportant and minor effects on a voting, how your personal feelings about candidates with clearly published guidelines are. To use your own example: I personally hate playgrounds as wayspots - that are no places for smartphone game playing people hanging around in my personal view. Nethertheless I vote for the average public accessible playground 4* in the overall category ....

    ... and to your other assumption about the part with the stumbling upon evry 15 minutes .... are you Dutch?

    Footbridges in the middle of a forest of a mountain range arent very often, especially at this place. The trail is roughly 100m higher than the rivers level (the river is in the map with less zoom at the left side). It's already remarkable, that the creeks there at this elevation have flowing water, not only wet earth, so that bridges at this place are an unexpected thing. Thats why they are the namesakes of the trail - because there isnt something comparable ....

    And especially with the new wording of the criteria hiking trails are in general declared as eligible candidates, so the big criterion "a great place to exercise/explore" is now more broadly speaking than before. The old guidelines had statements for the eligiblity of trail markers and foot bridges. Now there is more creativity possible. Now there is the question, what good proxies for hiking trails can be. Nominating the namesakes of a trail should be by far a good proxy.

    Post edited by Raachermannl-ING on
  • sogNinjaman-INGsogNinjaman-ING Posts: 3,271 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Bridges like this without any special architectural merit - "1* - The object is mass-produced, generic, or not visually unique or interesting"

  • TheNonFutile-INGTheNonFutile-ING Posts: 37 ✭✭

    These are 100% 1* not visually unique or interesting on the grounds of being really, really, boring footbridges even though they pass the "encourage exercise" test - but then so do flights of steps, stiles, gates, sidewalks..... Yes, I've read the instructions. They aren't going to be accepted anytime soon.

    If you read through these forums, you'll see that the quality of submissions is in inverse proportion to the amount of vitriolic complaints and abuse that their submitters post about how brilliant their submissions are and how stupid everyone else is for rejecting them.

  • (any) Bridge on a hiking trail is worth to be a wayspot , to increase the playability in this area.

  • ZwartMike-PGOZwartMike-PGO Posts: 11 ✭✭

    Not at all. One of the criteria for rejection is to reject nominations that are mass-produced, generic, or not visually unique or interesting. Y'know, that stuff that gets said in pretty much every thread here. Bridges are generic so they shouldn't get a free pass just because "it should improve playability". If the bridge has a very unique look to it, or when it has a historic/cultural background, they probably stand a way biger chance. But a bridge that i encounter every 5 minutes while reviewing, and looks 95% the same as every other bridge, will never make it. Unless the planets align and you wish upon a fallen star or something. People can be all mad about not getting their Generic Foot Bridge #2573 nominated, but that's life.

  • Jtronmoore-PGOJtronmoore-PGO Posts: 1,581 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I would try to show proof that its on a trail it may strengthen your nominations. Because just looking at them you call it that then tell hs about the criteria but dont show proof

  • sogNinjaman-INGsogNinjaman-ING Posts: 3,271 ✭✭✭✭✭

    What is it with the way some people are reading these rejection category scentences, or the way they think I am?

    There are two separate sentences included in the "Does not meet eligability" criteria. The second one reads "The object is mass-produced, generic, or not visually unique or interesting".

    Look at the punctuation. The scentence is read as "The object is mass-produced, (OR) generic OR not visually unique OR (NOT) interesting". I am not saying this bridge ticks all those boxes, but it is "generic" and "not interesting". "Visual uniqueness" does not cone into it.

  • oscarc1-INGoscarc1-ING Posts: 350 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Technically, none of the images shown are actually bridges. They are culverts. Plus they look like roads, so there might be a question of pedestrian access there.

    Previously the AMA allowed these (footbridges on trails), however they are not explicitly mentioned in the latest criteria (3.1). Therefore the people above stating that it does not meet criteria would be correct.

    Furthermore, the link you provided to the September 2020 AMA doesn't actually state what you are quoting. The quote comes from the October 2019 AMA. So you are misrepresenting what Niantic have stated by giving misleading sources.

    If you can give more information about the particular path's history or why this structure is notable, that might help.

  • TWVer-INGTWVer-ING Posts: 470 ✭✭✭✭✭

    This thread again shows there is a big difference between knowing the guidelines and understanding the guidelines.

    Footbridges under the old guidelines were eligible only when they were expected to be used as part of a trail. In other words, they where objects that placemark an area. Under the current criteria, trails are still eligible, and objects that placemark an area still are eligible, so footbridges that are expected to be part of a trail are still eligible. They do not have to be specifically mentioned for that. And saying that when something is no longer explicitly mentioned, it is no longer eligible, is just wrong.

    Now I agree that these "bridges" are not footbridges. And since they look like they can be used by cars as well, they are just infrastructure. If they are indeed the 3 bridges the trail is named after, they would be great examples for "objects that placemark an area", and are therefor eligible.


    • Footbridges that are expected to be used as part of a trail are still eligible.
    • If the culverts this thread is about are in fact the 3 bridges the trail is named after, they make great candidates as objects that placemark the trail.
  • Raachermannl-INGRaachermannl-ING Posts: 1,034 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited January 2021

    Nether heard that word before, but according to its set of possible translations it may be best fitting for these. There is no good and short word for them in German - so they were called bridges, although they are very much wall-like and only very little arch-like...

    I'm sure that question has been in the linked September-AMA. The questions may be asked during September, the answers came in October. But the questions about criteria clarification seems to be removed afterwards due to the criteria rework. Nowadays AMAs dont have only 8 questions like the official September-AMA have now. So there are some contents cut out...

    So its totally unimportant, what happened there in these links ..... nethertheless I have to use a link like yours now since the rework 👍️

    The trail can be used by car, at least with more than the average ground clearance. Forest rangers actually drive there, but its only them; usually at wood roads there is a sign, that prohibits passage by car, except for forest rangers. In this case there are also bar barriers at possible car entrances into this forest. This is how its usually done in Germany and noone would think in this way xD

    But the bigger guideline problem needs to be freed by the mods .... the posts waits now for hours to be released because of pictures...

  • Raachermannl-INGRaachermannl-ING Posts: 1,034 ✭✭✭✭✭

    What is it with the way some people are reading these rejection category scentences, or the way they think I am?

    This is what I ment. This is, what lots of people missunderstood, how to vote in that subcategory and how Niantic interpretes their own words. So this doesnt mean only, how impressive an object is, they simply want to know how distinguishable it is in its surroundings. A stone bridge in the forest can be easily identified and found. My standard negative example for this: nominating a single stucco head or putti (childish, **** angel statues) at a baroque or rococo facade of a castle, for example Versailles. There are lots of them, they may all have slight differences, but its nearly impossible to distinguish them or find a specific one. At other places they could be fully eligible, if there are only one or two of them.

    @sogNinjaman-ING So I'm relieved, that this is not your argument, but nethertheless some other commenting people in this thread seemed to not understand this 😅

    You're arguing with this strange second sentence. Let's have a look at the way around:


    The way you treat this enumeration is like a single additional K.O. rejection reason on the level of K12-schools. I don't think that KOing is the intention behind this, because it would imply to reject nearly evry submitted playground, like stated in my last comment. Playgrounds are in most cases mass produced standard configurations of the product of a few specialized companies.

    So my interpretation of this second sentence is, that it's intended to be a reminder or if-block: if you don't see criteria fulfilled, than think about the catchphrases generic, mass-produced, not visually unique and uninteresting to possibly ensure you to reject this candidate. So I dont think that this sentence has the same impact like a hypothetical must(-not) on acceptance checklist or a standalone K.O. criterion. Especially since generic and/or mass-produced objects were allowed to be wayspots, if they are intresting in any way:

    I have only the German wording of OPRs guidelines here, but it states, that art objects, that are produced in a series, are ineligible, but there is an exception: if its interesting of historical, for example for the 1st objects of a special type. This old guideline would also hurt the Oxford-comma-logic of the enumeration of nowadays wording ....

    A second thing is, that the two sentences in the German version are totally different. In German there is only one sentence and the logic is linked in another way:

    So here a translation, that uses the English words of the original text, but the logic of the German sentence:

    It's no place, that is great for exploration, exercising or socialising, or it's a generic, massproduced object, that isn't visually unique or interesting.

    So here is a big difference between the languages. The German sentence fits the old guideline from above, because for rejection the object needs to be generic/massproduced AND not interesting/unique in another way. So the old OPR entry doesnt hurt the German statement. So I'm sure, that my interpreation is right, but to be really sure:

    @NianticCasey-ING , please check the logic behind the explanation sentences in the big point "Does not meet eligibility criteria" under wayfarers criteria. The english version is missleading, because sentence 1 and 2 aren't linked to each other, and the way the enumeration is done, is complicated. The German version has another logic. Further it's complicated to use an Oxford-comma-logic there; non-mothertongues dont understand it most likely, because most languages don't use Oxford-commata. I would recomment to construct a sentence like in the German version - with only one big logical operator, and specifications with relative clauses.


    So now back to my bridge(s):

    • massproduced? no. I think no bridge is mass produced, because they need to be adjusted to where they are.
    • generic? Lots of bridges are generic, especially the small ones. That may be true for my bridges, although they have a few uncommon properties.... built out of cobblestone, not concrete. relatively old. deep in the woods....
    • visually unique? yes. easy distinguishable from the surroundings, individual cobblestone builds. enough for 3+ stars in that subcategory.
    • interesting? yes, because being namesake for a hiking trail makes them intresting. Further they are old .....

    The point interesting should be automatically fulfilled by fulfilling the old guideline, that states, that footbridges for hiking trails are eligible. My understanding of guidlines for special objects is, that they override lots of these considerations we discuss about. Those guidelines were given, because the people had exactly the troubles like we. So Niantic throws out these rulings, so that we dont have to discuss about these concerns. Otherwise the guidelines for confusing candidates would be totally needless, if evryone would be searching for their personal problems in the confusing cases nethertheless....

    Further I had an idea what to add to the description, that would make the submission possibly more interesting for @sogNinjaman-ING : the bridges should be built in the 19th century by the local duke back then. Although the town is very small, it was ancestral seat of high nobility. The guy died 1896, then a memorial stone was placed few hundred metres away on the mountain top. There is another historical aspect, I didnt especially mention in English, because the link from the bigger hiking trail named "Historische Salzstraße" is only accessible in German: this trail follows roughly the route of a medieval merchants route for salt between Saxony and Bohemia.


    Here btw an example of a really generic bridge: (todays 2nd review....)

    title: New Bridge townname

    Description: title of a song with bridges

    additional info: 2020 renewed bridge over river. Easy accessible. Nice green railing.

Sign In or Register to comment.