Back in the day, Niantic disliked the signs that pointed towards the central business district or the port, that were not part of a distinct route, and favored those that de-marked a pilgrimage path or a hiking trail.
What makes no sense about these recent rulings is that these signs do keep people on a specific trail, that is designed to be scenic and safe. You keep following the decision points until you reach the park or beach. You can carry on and reach another interesting place.
Niantic seems to be saying that nodal routes are somehow inferior to those that simply connect ‘A’ to ‘B’ and then vanish. This is nonsensical.
The complete lack of context on why a given decision was made causes frustration for the community and fails to educate people.
In this case, you could have added something like “because per the eligibility criteria hiking trails, biking trails, and markers for them are great places to exercise, but I don’t really care about all that.”
Relying on the community to explain why you have made or will make a given decision allows false statements to proliferate as users guess at prior decisions and treat them as new criteria statements not made or clarified elsewhere.
An example from this morning. No one helped this person because no one understands the decisions being made. So they asked again. Why is my Wayspot rejected?
