Removed trail markers

After a recent post of mine 3 trail markers were removed from a list of 5 mass produced trail markers. The locations of the removed locations are:

53.1458,6.55305 - trail marker for a network of short hiking trails throughout the province
53.157482,6.55774 - a trail marker on the same trail, attached to the pole of a traffic sign
53.177685,6.536832 - biking trail marker for a similar network of short trails throughout a province

What’s baffling to me is that the 3 other mass produced trail markers did not get removed. I’d like clarifications on why some mass produced trail markers are acceptable and others are considered to be abuse. The inconsistent enforcement of guidelines make submitting anything a minefield.

mass produced trail marker 1
Ingress - trail marker for a local running trail. The marker has a name, the direction to follow and the total length of the trail. All markers on the trail are the same except for the directions the arrows point in.

This waypoint was listed in my last post. The fact that it didn’t get removed leads me to believe that this trail marker is seen as an eligible waypoint. If this waypoint is indeed a high quality waypoint, I wonder why a similar series of trail markers was removed. A trail marker named “Routewijzer Kunstroute Vinkhuizen” at 53.222113, 6.528200 was previously removed. This marker has a name and the direction to follow. The markers on the trail are all the same and the marker got rotated 90 degrees to achieve the effect of pointing people into a different direction.

If the trail marker hardlopen in Noordenveld is acceptable and the trail marker routewijzer kunstroute vinkhuizen is not, does that mean that the criteria is that a marker has to have the length of the trail on it?

mass produced trail marker 2
Ingress - 3 trail markers. The first trail marker is a trail marker that isn’t eligible as it was removed as a result of my previous post (see 3rd removed location). Another one of these is also ineligible as it was also removed as a result of my previous post (see 1st removed location). This only leaves the “paterswoldsemeer fietsroute” as valid waypoint.

The Paterswoldsemeer fietsroute is a bike trail throughout the general vicinity of a lake. The trail markers have the name of the trail and an arrow to point people in the right direction. If the precedent set in the previous thread still holds true, this mass produced trail marker is valid just because it has the name of the trail on it.

The problem with this conclusion is obviously that this logic would mean that the trail marker Routewijzer kunstroute Vinkhuizen should be restored as it also has the name of the trail and an arrow pointing people in a certain direction.

potentially problematic trail markers based on set precedent
Following are a set of trail markers that should or should not be waypoints according to illogical enforcement of trail marker eligibility. These are included in hope that removal and/or inclusion of them will provide clarity in the submission of other trail markers.

Ingress - Trail marker for a 325 kilometre long trail from Groningen to Osnabruck, Germany. Each trail marker has the name of the trail and an arrow pointing people in the right direction. All trail markers are the same apart from a few arrow variations.

Ingress - Trail marker. The metal signs are mass produced. The trail marker has a name and an arrow pointing people in the right direction. All trail markers on the trail are the same apart from a few arrow vatiations.

Ingress - Trail marker. This trail is mostly stickers. There is nothing on this trail marker to signify the name of the trail or the direction to follow.

Ingress - Bike trail marker. Has name and arrow. All markers are the same except for arrows.

I’d like to see a consistent enforcement of rules that are communicated to the playerbase. To me this means removal of ALL mentioned trail markers, restoration of ALL mentioned trail markers or retirement + restoration of certain markers based on clear logic.

The previous Giffard scale was clear. At least replace old but clear guidance with equally clear guidance. I’m more than happy to report ineligible trail markers but there has to be clear guidance before anything productive can be done.


I agree, clarity on these things is worse than ever, we need a definite rule to work from, especially if people are being punished for making the wrong choice.

If Niantic can’t provide consistency, it’s unfair to expect wayfarers to know what’s correct.

Personally I like a great many of the various trail markers, they aid in exploration and provide good routes to follow in areas where there might be little else.

Although there are limits and some people are abusing the system and calling things trail markers which clearly aren’t, I’d prefer this issue addressed rather than a blanket ban on anything without a name etc. People intent on misrepresentation will just do it in a slightly different way.


I’d be fine with a ban on anything without name. Sadly Niantic doesn’t know what they want as some trail markers with name get removed and others do not.

One issue I see here is that there are a lot of popular, well known trails that use symbols or icons in place of an actual name on the markers, other markers have text which is being presented as a trail name when it isn’t. It’s not quite so clear cut but we do need something more solid to work from.