@26thDoctor @frealafgb
Are these NCN markers commonplace and virtually always accepted when submitted? Because this:
Is literally the exact kind of node-based network that we have here in the Netherlands that I keep linking to.
Plan je eigen fietsroute | VisitBrabant
And all the markers I keep submitting for the Dutch node-based hiking and cycling networks keep getting approved by the AI and even Niantic’s employees, but then Aaron (supposedly) swoops in and removes them again.
@NianticAaron I saw you claiming in this topic (
Appeal against removed Pokestops and gyms at 3 Universities and the historic cemetery (Lublin, Poland) - #4 by NianticAaron) that your policies don’t discriminate, but it sure seems to be that way. If not, you’re really going to have to explain to me how/why this is eligible:
And this is not:
Both have a number. Both have an arrow. Both have a bike symbol. Both mention the relevant organization. The only difference is one of them being in the UK and one of them being in the Netherlands.
3 Likes
The NCN routes are long distance routes like this one is around 300 miles long, but yes cyclists (and walkers-much of the trail is available to both) will often complete sections rather than the whole thing. In fact I don’t think many would do the whole thing in 1 go/one weekend!!
For me the NCNs are really about exploring because they pass a lot of villages, towns and cities and also pass through some amazing countryside. Being on a bike means you get to see more in a few hours of activity and I just think encouraging that is fantastic.
Route 5 goes from my town to Wales, and goes across an official “area of outstanding natural beauty” which starts a few miles from the sign in my example, in Oxfordshire. Lots of hills, which is obviously hell for an unfit cyclist like me but the views are really worth it!!
These are sort of 50/50 on approving. The ML really likes a particular style of NCN sign which is rectangular and has a picture of a bike on it - very similar to your example actually!! But when it goes to regular reviewers or the appeals team its not a super high accptance rate first try, albeit they have all been accepted eventually.
3 Likes
Up until a year ago it was extremely difficult to get NCN markers accepted. I don’t think reviewers really understood what they were and they didn’t like the blue metal signs they are usually on.
It’s still a bit hit and miss though.
That was my reason for mentioning NCN when I saw yours they looked similar to our network but I’m not that familiar with the signage etc of yours
Technically NCN routes are cycling and walking routes although some are cycle specific.
2 Likes
Yes I’ve got pages of submissions, some of them have been rejected but then accepted on appeal so it messes up the pattern of accept/reject 
Definitely around a year or so since they became more acceptable - I think with the critieria update and biking trails being explicity listed, that helped
Although I do have one from before that which was again a particular style that maybe made reviewers prefer it with the circular top of the sign in white. This one is maybe a mile from the now famous sticker one, it also says “Stoke Row” in the cut off blue part
1 Like
Rejected.
Appealed and rejected.
Rejected.
Accepted.
I can’t see it anymore on my account but I think it was something along those lines.
2 Likes
@26thDoctor @frealafgb
Thank you both for the valuable information.
I take it there have not been any mass purges of NCN trail markers (or trail markers in general) in your areas? And the NCN trail markers don’t get removed by Niantic within a few days of being accepted?
Then I’d love to see @NianticAaron come in here and claim that there’s no regional biases going on.
1 Like
NCN routes are proper cycling routes. The ones you have showed are nodes. There is difference.
From what i understand the “purges” were primarily in response to the bot network that was approving absolutely everything in your area. So perhaps the “bias” is simply a response to that?
Nah, mate. It’s literally the exact same thing. These (Routes overview | VisitBrabant) are proper cycling routes too. And they use the signage and markers of the node network. Just like how the NCN is an interconnected network of numbered roads that has some “proper” cycling routes attached to it. Did you not see my comparison of their respective trail markers a few posts ago? Because they contain the exact same information.
Last I checked, the bot network was dealt with a long time ago. On top of that, countless innocent players had their legitimate submissions caught up in it and have had their hard work thoroughly destroyed by Niantic with zero recompense. And there is zero justification for the continued crackdown on the Netherlands when the cause of that crackdown has long since been dealt with.
2 Likes
Whenever you’re ready, @NianticAaron
1 Like
It is naive to think that the consequences of the botting are dealt with. I still see submissions in Wayfarer on a daily basis that should have never been approved in the first place. Of course you can question the timing of such submissions, but I can assure you there has been a massive increase in coal being submitted since literally everything was approved roughly one year ago. Too many submitters still rely on in-game examples to show them what is eligible (which is not true) and many of those bad examples still exist. However, there is no specific crackdown on the Netherlands, it may appear that way, but there is just such a huge amount of wayspots that should have never made it in the database. For example, all those little free libraries on single family private residential property, or all those mosaic tiles people strategically put up to fill the gameboard, and there are so many more of these examples.
This was not meant for responding to trail markers specifically, but more the fact that the after-effect of the bot network is most definitely still visible and many more wayspots will still disappear.
Trail markers should be used to highlight interesting walks/bike rides. Without that context it is very hard to state black/white if your examples are good wayspots. So you cannot categorically state if those signs are eligible or not. It is up to the submitter to explain that context, so this is why you might see different results.
5 Likes
The bot network has long since been dismantled. That Niantic has done such a sloppy job cleaning it up is a different point. I still see plenty of Pokestops that are just some small plastic slide someone put in their front yard in my area. Niantic apparently can’t detect those. I submitted removal requests for plenty of them but they’re always rejected. At some point I’m done trying to do their job for them, especially when they see fit to unjustly destroy so much of my hard work.
But that still does nothing to answer my question why my trail marker submissions get approved by both the AI and Niantic reviewers, only to then be removed within days by Aaron (supposedly).
Nor does it answer why Aaron keeps yammering on about a trail having to have a name when not only is that not listed as a requirement anywhere in the criteria clarifications, but there are literal examples in the criteria clarifications of trail markers with thumbs-up emojis next to them that specifically state they’re acceptable, even though they’re not part of a named trail.
Every single one of the trail markers I listed in my original post matches this one from the criteria clarifications:
They are official, they are at decision points, they are at unique locations, and their locations can be verified using the supporting photos and the websites I have provided countless times in this topic. So you cannot tell me they are ineligible when they hit all the same notes as this shining example of eligibility from the criteria clarifications.
All this looks like to me is Aaron having his own flawed interpretation of the criteria and forcing his opinion through, even when other Niantic reviewers and the AI do actually properly follow the criteria.
1 Like
No need to pin this on one person. And I did answer regarding trail markers that context is relevant, which is also stated in the clarifications. That context might have been differently interpreted by the different people that reviewed it. Just to repeat there are no categorically eligible wayspots it all depends on multiple factors.
1 Like
Yes. And they fulfill enough of those factors.
- Official
- Permanent
- At a unique location
- Verifiable using an official website
- Numbered (which is as much of a distinguishing factor as a name)
What more could you want?
Then I suggest to provide all that context in the re-submission of the trail markers you feel meet eligibility criteria.
