Some of the pokestops I uploaded (mostly Fietsroutepaaltjes, which are traffic signs for bicicles in The Netherlands), are getting removed out of no where, I don’t know why and I didn’t get a message or anything. Many of my Routes are attached to these routes and suddenly they are “Achieved”. Is this intentional? If so could I get explained why without TMI?
Thank you in advance!
Official Niantic statement:
These signboards are directional signs to the next node which are similar to general directional signs as has been established through different discussion on this forum. These are not part of a defined trail. As a result, we are unable to restore these.
I can’t comment on the removals or whether the original Wayspots were eligible without seeing more information but it is correct that any Routes connected to a PokéStop get archived if that PokéStop it starts/ends at is removed.
Thanks for telling, that kinda really sucks becouse most fietsroutes are just nameless routes, we are that advanced in biking in the netherlands that we usually don’t name routes, we just take whatever route we like to get at a location… Niantic being Niantic I guess.
(the red part of the road is for cyclists, the grey part is for pedestrians)
The name of the trail in this case, is ‘Dordwijk route’ and is well-documented on the city’s official site, where this is listed as one of only three routes through the city:
Now, almost all of these signs are gone and more are disappearing every month. Many people (even in the original forums) have already tried to return them, to no avail.
It would be preferable and time saving if Niantic could point out why these points are unacceptable, and why people have even been given warnings about submitting them, while they have always perfectly matched OPR/Wayfarer criteria.
I can therefore only surmise that they are unacceptable because they either are bicycle routes, or they look too much like traffic signs. Unfortunately, this is how they look throughout the country.
These look very similar to the general directional signs to the next node in the bicycle node network, which are indeed regarded as general direction signs as these are not a clearly defined trail.
While for these specific ones they actually state a trail (name), so please appeal one, I am also curious about the team’s decision.
I’m going to go out on a limb and assume the response will be something along the lines of “We cannot approve this appeal as it is a normal trail marker”.
This whole discussion could just be ended permanently if Niantic would stop being so uptight about those trail markers. I completely fail to see how the trail markers from the Dutch and Belgian node-based cycling route networks are any less eligible than this:
These signs are official. These signs are at decision points. They are unique objects with unique functions. They hit all the points that the criteria clarification CLEARLY lists under an example of what’s eligible.
And what’s even more ridiculous is that the intersection points of the network apparently ARE eligible but the markers leading you to them aren’t.
…and are known to have been voted online, especially during the abuse waves in the Netherlands of last year. These are just directions and are in no way a trail.
I will appeal one of the markers to see the team’s decision and post results.
Told ya. Either they just don’t care to listen to us, or they’re still mad at the Netherlands as a whole for that bot abuse nonsense that only a few people are actually responsible for.
… you’ll notice the red line, and along are the nodes. “45” is one of them (the sign in my example points to it). Those nodes are the real trail markers, according to Niantic.
What’s weird is: the distance between the nodes is so large, one could not possibly follow the route without these ‘directional signs’. In my opnion, the directional signs are clearly trail markers that define the route. If they were not in place, the route would actually become undefined as the nodes could be visited using any road one would choose.
I’ll put that last one in the appeal, and leave it at this. I fear I will not get past the “it has been established” argument.
Yep. That’s precisely the part they refuse to take into consideration. Each and every section in this node network is its own unique route with its own numbered markers. They’re so focused on apparently requiring a name for their routes (even though no such requirement exists in the criteria clarifications) when numbers make a route just as unique as any name would.
And you’re also completely right about the hypocrisy of allowing the nodes to exist in the database, but not the markers leading you from node to node. What’s the point then? Either have all of it or none of it. Only implementing half of the network (and arguably the less important half at that) serves no purpose.
