If generic/mass-produced trail markers are eligible, why aren't other points of interest along hiking trails eligible under the same reasoning?

Nomination Support
1

First off, I realize that this submission is not exactly stellar. I recognize that this is just a tree stump crudely carved into a seat, and I wouldn’t be posting anything if this were located along a suburban sidewalk and it got rejected.

However, this object is located along a beautiful Hawaiian beachside trail (a great place to exercise), and the object itself is definitely both permanent and uniquely identifiable – see the M carved in the seat. I guarantee there are no other tree stump chairs located along this stretch of coast for several miles in either direction – I’ve walked quite a bit of this coastline myself. On top of that, there are also no signs or trail markers in the stretch where this chair is positioned between the two adjacent resorts.

My point here is that I think this particular example falls into the “technically eligible but too generic to be accepted on its own” category.

With that said, why is it that generic-looking, mass-produced trail markers are eligible per Niantic as great places to exercise, but other unique (though not otherwise stellar) points of interest along hiking trails aren’t eligible under that same criterion?

Personally, I would vote more generic-looking locations similar to this one (i.e. along trails, but not sidewalks) as a “yes” under exercise while reviewing – should I change that?

I suppose this particular case could come down to not putting enough emphasis on the exercise viewpoint in my supplimental info, but I would have thought “A great place to rest while out on a beach walk!” would get the point across.

Thoughts?

P.S. Regarding my appeal notes, the original reason for rejection simply stated that the submission violated the wayfarer criteria. I assume the “uniqueness / historical and cultural meaning” reason was added by the appeal reviewer.

Original Submission:

Wayspot Submission for Tree Stump Chair

Waimea HI

Appeal Not Accepted

2025-07-06

Appeal Notes

I’m not sure what part of the criteria this violates. It’s located about 10m from the shoreline, so it must be freely accessible to the public per Hawaii state law (this cannot be private property). The cursive M on the seat makes it distinct and uniquely identifiable. Additionally, the chair sits on the historic seaside Fishermen’s trail, making it a great place to rest while exercising.

Niantic Note

Thanks for the appeal, Explorer! The nomination in question does not meet the Wayfarer criteria as it is just a tree branch carved as a chair. If this assessment is not accurate, please resubmit the nomination with additional context. We recommend you review the Wayspot Criteria and Forum Criteria Discussions Library sections before submitting your next Wayspot contribution: https://niantic.helpshift.com/hc/en/21-wayfarer and Forum Criteria Discussions Library — Wayfarer Help Center

Reviewers provided these top reasons for not accepting this submission:
  • The submission lacks uniqueness or historical and cultural meaning

384×512 103 KB

Description

A seaside tree stump carved into a chair. I wonder what the “M” carved into the seat stands for?

Location

1260×1058 50.9 KB

68-1019 Pauoa Way, Waimea, HI 96743, USA

Supplemental Information

512×384 119 KB

Located along the seaside fishermen’s trail between the Mauna Lani and Fairmont Orchid resorts. A great place to rest while out on a beach walk!

2

I would just take the rejection. Resubmit and frame it as an anchor point to a scenic lookout. Since it does over look the water. I too get perplexed over appeal staff judgements at times.

1 Like
3

Trail markers are in place to maintain trails. It is my understanding that rather than the trail markers qualifying, the trail itself qualifies according to the criteria for exercise, and each of the locations where the markers are placed is acceptable.
By the way, does this place to sit and rest meet any of the eligibility criteria of “explore” “socializing,” or “exercise”? That is what you need to convince your community reviewer or the staff member in charge of the appeal review. I cannot recognize that your nominee is qualified with that description and supporting information.

1 Like
4

I love trail infrastructure. I love footbridges, pedestrian tunnels, overlooks, location identifiers, and even most types of benches and seating areas.

With respect, I have a hard time seeing past “just a stump” and don’t feel that the etched “M” is enough to stand out as being unique and intentionally placed trail point of interest.

1 Like
5

I’ll think about the scenic lookout aspect.

As an aside, and to clarify for others - I actually am less concerned with my one rejected submission here and am more looking for clarity on what seems (to me) to be a logical grey area in the criteria.

1 Like
6

Honestly it looks like someone used that stump for practice cuts with their new buzzsaw. Especially seeing the back end and the front end’s cut off portion right on the ground next to it.

7

I hear you there. Since the main post wasn’t super clear on this, I’m not trying to argue for the validity of this particular submission - more just trying to clarify whether a POI sitting on a trail can be a reason to thumbs-up exercise even when the object itself isn’t exercise-related, and if non-trail-related POIs can be treated like a trail marker on an otherwise unmarked trail.

1 Like
8

Apologies if my reply dwelled more on the candidate in question than you intended - I did see you edited the original post a little to clarify the discussion before I made my reply, but I still felt it relevant.

There’s a lot of discussion that takes place about trail infrastructure, but it’s hard without specifics.

Somewhere along my reviewing years, I’ve concluded that maybe, just maybe something that exists on a trail or off the beaten path that was intentionally added to enhance the experience and for anyone to enjoy just might be acceptable.

2 Likes
9

No worries, the lack of clarity is on me. I just further edited the OP to hopefully make the intent more clear off the bat.

10

As far as the question,

People like signs. Good trail markers help identify where you are with respect to the trail - make sure you haven’t wandered off and maybe help tell how far you’ve gone or how far you have to go. I wouldn’t say they give you a sense of being, but they give you a sense of where you are. It’s all about how they help with exploration. Early criteria always held that trail markers were eligible, and that’s something that always ingrained into people’s understanding going forward.

5 Likes
11

Hi! I would also be interested in seeing more examples of the types of POI you are thinking of, but I would not automatically assume that trail markers are the only eligible things along a trail. A lot of it boils down to what you mean by “not stellar”, imo :slight_smile:

12

You say that the chair is on a trail, but you don’t mention it in the submission. It’s also at an interesting viewpoint, although the chair is sitting the wrong way. It does look like a great place to rest and take photos.

Adding the trail name and the viewpoint into the submission would make it a much better submission. As it is, the submission is a bit boring and doesn’t have any context.