Russia Wayfarer Challenge: Earn double the rewards, plus 10 Upgrades, by reaching 7,000 Wayspots added by 16 June, 2021! Learn More

I honestly don’t know anymore

2»

Comments

  • mrdeadhead-PGOmrdeadhead-PGO Posts: 11 ✭✭

    yah again, generic is not mass-produced. and generic is fine when it's a feature of a public hiking trail (with an added historic background). the simpleness of this footbridge (and the picture of it, too) might not bring you to tears with its beauty and inspire your soul, but it doesn't need to, it's a landmark on a hiking trail and qualifies under exploration criteria.

    and honestly in terms of the picture, who cares? it's not of low quality, fully and clearly shows the object in question, and doesn't contain anything illicit. this isn't an art critique site. the submitter doesn't need to be a skilled photographer with an eye for composition. if someone wants to add better pictures later, by all means do, until then it's a terrible reason for rejection.

  • Jtronmoore-PGOJtronmoore-PGO Posts: 1,225 ✭✭✭✭✭

    What historic background? Lol even the op never mentioned anything about that

  • Jtronmoore-PGOJtronmoore-PGO Posts: 1,225 ✭✭✭✭✭

    The funny thing is when people generally say others need to critically think its because other people have varying ideas of what is eligible in terms of there own interpretation of the guidelines. What there really saying is “you need to think exactly like me and approve my nomination”. Where as if you use critical thinking accompanied with that theres no official guidelines about footbridges wether to accept or deny there is a lot of room for interpretation.

    What one person may think is acceptable others may not and thats really what we are running into here.

    Then with any argument of mass produced/generic they try to compare it to other objects that have been inherently eligible by niantic standards to try and prove that the object itself should be accepted if those are accepted. Which is not critical thinking.

    In the end maybe explain who built it, the purpose of it, and any points you have that may make this meet criteria and go from there. Personally I see tons of foot bridge nominations and they are all the same type of build which is why imo they are generic looking or mass produced. Good luck on the nomination

  • EvilDoctorSlice-INGEvilDoctorSlice-ING Posts: 41 ✭✭

    @mrdeadhead-PGO the problem with stating that any generic landmark on a hiking trail is acceptable is that there is no Niantic clarification that I am aware of that backs up this statement. Quite the opposite is true and we are told to reject anything that is mass-produced, generic, or not visually unique or interesting.

    For example, there's an online timber company that sells a variety of bridge, gates and stiles for use on public trails . By your criteria, are all these acceptable wayspot candidates?


    As @Oakes1923-PGO has pointed out, we see mass-produced objects like gazebos, outdoor gym equipment, memorial benches, trail markers and memorial plaques submitted all the time. These are accepted precisely because Niantic have clarified that they *should* be accepted, regardless of whether they meet the rejection criteria for being mass-produced or visually uninteresting.

    The only reason this argument about trail bridges is still going on is because in October 2019 Niantic stated that wooden bridges on walking trails met the criteria for being a portal. This position was stated again in the September 2020 AMA. Then in November 2020 they told us to ignore all those previous clarifications and start again from scratch.

    Reviewers now seem to be split into 2 groups. 

    • Those who believe the earlier statements are still valid and wooden trail bridges should be accepted regardless of how visually uninteresting they are
    • Those who believe that without those older statements, wooden trail bridges are just generic pieces of trail infrastructure and are no more valid as wayspots than a wooden gate or a stile.

    Without a new clarification I don't see this discussion will be settled any time soon.

    So how about it @NianticCasey-ING @NianticGiffard. Any chance we could get an official confirmation about whether wooden trail bridges should be accepted or rejected under the new criteria?

  • Oakes1923-PGOOakes1923-PGO Posts: 193 ✭✭✭

    Critical thinking requires objective unbiased analysis in order to come to an informed judgement or argument. Much like @EvilDoctorSlice-ING did in his post. Thoughtful well written post outlining the argument on both sides and why the need for a clarification. Not sure I agree with all the finer points but in the end a well thought out post. All I’ve seen in many of the arguments against is a perversion of a fairly straightforward definition of mass produced objects, when the definition we’ve been given by Niantic has literal concrete visual aides.

    As many others have pointed out Niantic has indicated that footbridges have been explicitly acceptable in the past. Now if you believe that the new criteria overrides the old that’s fine but the new criteria has said nothing about disallowing them, and they clearly meet a number of eligibility and acceptance criteria, a conclusion that requires little to no mental gymnastics. Yet the conclusion that many arguing against would have us reaching hard for a standard that simply does not exist; that somehow they are mass produced. That’s a definition of mass produced that simply does not exist. Not one we just happen to disagree with but a standard that is irrational and nonsensical.

    think about it this way, if this was a 50/50 split then footbridges would be accepted and rejected as much or more then restaurants and coffee shops. And if that were the reality I may concede that point that maybe they could be considered mass produced. Footbridges however are generally universally accepted. I’ve nominated 15 and had one rejected (which was immediately resubmitted and went through on an upgrade). What I’m seeing more from many of your posts (and others of similar mind) is you disapprove of more wayspots and perhaps think the pool has been watered down too much. If that’s your stance fight for that. Make your case for that. But I feel like most of this is grasping for concrete Target ball size straws.

  • mrdeadhead-PGOmrdeadhead-PGO Posts: 11 ✭✭
    edited June 9

    are they on actual designated trails? does a string of them act as trail markers for players? then yes, submit every single one of them.

  • Gendgi-PGOGendgi-PGO Posts: 1,522 ✭✭✭✭✭

    How does a submitter and a reviewer determine if a footbridge is generic or not? Do we look at the Wal-Mart add and go from there?

  • Eneeoh-PGOEneeoh-PGO Posts: 98 ✭✭✭

    So, name-brand footbridges are good nominations, it’s just the cheaper no-name knock-offs we are supposed to reject. Perhaps we can tell the difference because generic packaging is black and white?

    In all seriousness, guidance is only useful if it clearly denotes inclusion/rejection criteria or it illustrates and clarifies the required thought processes.

    @NianticGiffard please escalate this issue to the appropriate management, or, if you are simply wrapping an inclined plane around a vertical axis, refrain....

  • Jtronmoore-PGOJtronmoore-PGO Posts: 1,225 ✭✭✭✭✭

    No name brand has nothing to do with it. It is plainly stated

    historic/interesting or architecturally unique.

    generic would be non-interesting in architectural design and have no historic/interesting thing about the bridge

    on a separate note @NianticGiffard could we add this clarification to the top of the criteria section of wayfarer so we have an up to date section with all the clarifications?

  • Purptacular-PGOPurptacular-PGO Posts: 56 ✭✭✭
    edited June 10

    Niantic created new eligibility criteria to encourage Wayfinders to stop, think, and decide what places make great Wayspots for their local communities. Their staff members need to stop showing up to make these decisions for us. That was the problem with the old AMA clarifications and I'm disappointed to see that this problem is repeating itself.

    That being said, @NianticGiffard stated that "interesting" bridges should be eligible while "generic" bridges should be rejected. I am a dedicated backpacker and hiker, and I am here to make the case that most footbridges are interesting.

    Bridges let you cross water and other soggy places to continue along the trail, rather than having to turn back and retrace your steps. They are great places to stop and notice how high the water level is, whether there are fish or turtles or shells or foam or 1,000 maple seeds in the water, what unique water plants are growing nearby. Kids get excited and run back and forth, picking up sticks and rocks and throwing them down into the creek or river below. Moms stop to take pictures and teens stop to take selfies.

    Other times footbridges cross roads, protecting you from the traffic zooming back and forth, letting you continue your adventure without fear. Some, my favorites, cross ravines. You can stop and look far down and contemplate what might happen if you took one false step and plummeted to the ground below.

    When I review a nomination for a footbridge, I stop to consider all these things, and I decide whether the nomination is a great place for exercise, exploration, or to be social with others. I rate them accordingly. I don't approve all of these bridges, but often imagination and experience allow me to envision how meaningful they might be to the people who encounter them. I don't expect all other reviewers to consider them in the same way, but I do expect them to think and reflect based on the case that each submitter has made in support of the significance of their particular nomination. I encourage you to do the same.

  • Roli112-PGORoli112-PGO Posts: 714 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I guess we have to proof "interesting" now... woo **** new buzzword

  • EvilDoctorSlice-INGEvilDoctorSlice-ING Posts: 41 ✭✭

    Thanks for the feedback @NianticGiffard. It's helpful to get some clarification where the new criteria appear to contradict previously issued AMA guidance.

    Not really sure I understand the issue people have with identifying generic bridges though. If you can buy it from a manufacturer, or download the plans from the Internet and nail a few planks together yourself, it's probably generic. If the only supporting evidence you've got is "it is a bridge for getting over some water" then it's probably generic.

    For example, I would describe all these wooden bridges as generic and would reject them.

    However if there is something about the bridge that means it meets some other acceptance criteria then it would be considered eligible, e.g. if the bridge has some notable architecture; if it relates to an historical event; if it is important to the local community; or is locally famous for some reason.

  • B00JL5YI7G-PGOB00JL5YI7G-PGO Posts: 132 ✭✭

    If the name and construction date are written on the bridge, the road bridge is historic enough

    If you know where the bridge in the park is, it will be effective as a trail.

  • Jtronmoore-PGOJtronmoore-PGO Posts: 1,225 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Being old is not the same as being historic.

    Being old does not make anything eligible.

  • Oakes1923-PGOOakes1923-PGO Posts: 193 ✭✭✭

    I agree with you on 1 for certain (that can be bought as is or as a prefab kit from your local lumber yard) and 2 (based on that photo) I might even agree with you on 4 (although it's a bit more intricate). . The others to me are not generic as they span a creek or brook, and essential for use of the trail they might be located on and were likely built by parks crew, local troop, town recreation department etc. This is were adding some supporting details would be helpful, but even on their own I personally wouldn't call 3, 5, ad 6 generic.

  • Roli112-PGORoli112-PGO Posts: 714 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I personally don't think @NianticCasey-ING previous message was clearly conveyed in @NianticGiffard message... as some comments show... a lot of people cling on to the idea that most if not all bridges are basic and mass produced and don't look at the bigger picture... where as there's plenty that can make a bridge interesting. Some of us came up with some examples of what we think makes a good candidate and not. @AnsonNIA-PGO maybe you can give the list your blessing or come up with something more clear on your own.

    Some good examples:

    • Bridge with a scenic view that people often use as photo-ops
    • Bridge used for fishing
    • Bridges with a history (former railroad converted into pedestrian)
    • Bridges that can be hang out spots (maybe have benches on them)
    • Cable suspended or floating bridges where kids usually bounce and hop across
    • Bridges with local importance (with locks, ribbons etc. on the bridges that convey a meaning)
    • Bridges unique for being more than just a bridge, such as unique artwork, light displays, or ornate metalwork
    • Bridges that facilitate exploration of a greater areas (a staircase up a steep hill, boardwalk across a swampy area, bridge over a creek stream or river)

    Some bad examples:

    • Planks of wood over a small ditch
    • A continuing path over a culvert drain
    • Bridge that hosts car traffic (part of a bigger car traffic bridge with no discerning features/history)
    • Bridge mean for golf carts that may not be pedestrian safe
    • Temporary bridges
Sign In or Register to comment.