So are trail markers eligible again or not?

The new criteria clarifications (Trails & Markers) sure say they are, but then here’s a topic where @NianticLC rejects an appeal for one: Approved wayspot and old wayspot disappeared days after approval

So which is it, @NianticTintino @NianticAaron @NianticAtlas ? Do we just wipe our ass with the new criteria clarifications or is @NianticLC behind on his homework? I would like to know BEFORE I spend hours writing up appeal posts for the hundreds of trail markers that have been unjustly removed from my city.


I waw your other post, it doesnt make sense at all. Trail markers should be completely allowed and these seem like safe locations. Sorry this happened to you.


Oh, The Netherlands and trail markers. It’s complicated, as there are a good deal of fake trail marker Wayspots there, and it could be the case.

1 Like

Several trail markers around me were removed that are 100% legit, and visible in the exact same location in google maps.

Meanwhile, in other areas, I’ve seen trail markers placed in the middle of a block of houses, in the middle of soccer fields, etc…

I don’t know why this one Niantic employee has a personal vendetta against trail markers, as there seems to be no pattern in what gets removed and what stays.


A reminder to all that we need to treat each other with respect. That applies to fellow wayfinder and staff.
It is a frustrating situation but avoid personal comments. We are all human.
Expressing negative views about policy is ok.


Having had the criteria clarified around trail markers it will be good to see it used appropriately. I hope to see lots of submissions for interesting places I could explore.
It will take I hope a short time, to bed these down in the sort of documents.
The Netherlands is still not in a good place from all the fake submissions which included some false trail markers. It’s very frustrating for those that have been caught up in this but hopefully things will begin to sort out soon.


Every single one I submitted was 100% legit. I spent countless hours submitting them, and Niantic sees fit to remove all of my work just because of a handful of bad actors. I’m tired of it, especially when they now claim that trail markers are acceptable again. Sure wish they would’ve come to that conclusion before they threw my (and other people’s) hard work into the bin.


They seem to prefer taking the nuclear approach. Just burn down all trail marker portals, legitimate or not. Apparently they can’t be bothered with looking at StreetView to pick the good ones from the bad ones.


I don’t know why you are complaining to me; I’m just a regular user, but I do know about the issues with fake trail markers in several European countries getting approved. It’s not that much of an issue in the US, where I am, but I’ve seen some bad fake submissions that have been approved. Some may have a photo of a trail marker that does exist, but it’s nowhere near the approved location.

I’m just stating a iknown issue with trail markers in Europe, that’s all. Being I don’t submit any of these, only approve them, I really don’t have much else to say.


Got also trail marker rejected by Niantic:

  1. Nomination send to review on 21.5.2023 at 17.06 (pm)
  2. Nomination reviewed by Niantic “In Voting (Niantic)”
  3. Nomination rejected by Niantic on 24.5.2023 at 10.14 am

I think there is no point of using an Appeal here?

Location is Espoo, Finland



Similar example about month earlier:

  1. Nomination send to review on 27.4.2023 at 12.15 (pm)
  2. Nomination rejected on 2.5.2023 at 20.51 (pm)
    This must have been reviewed by Niantic, usually nominations can no way to be reviewed this fast in Espoo, Finland.


Note: The info that the nomination was reviewed by Niantic was lost after the review was completed, see:

In the clarifications

This part is important

It can be difficult to prove the actual location of these markers, such as those under tree cover or not visible on street view. Submitters should make good use of the supporting text and photos when nominating and include when possible links to official sites in support of the nomination. Reviewers should also use clues such as trail and park maps to help.

It is really important to give enough information that means anyone can verify it is a trail and a marker on that trail at that place.
I’m not sure if I am seeing all of the description and supplementary text but it appears to be very minimal. It appears to be a marker about a beach and a simple statement that it is a trail marker.
Did you explain more about this? For example did the description say something about the trail where it goes from or to, is it short or long. In the supplementary did you explain that the symbol is for this trail and what is unique about this point that makes this marker significant. Was there a link to a website to back it up?
You can’t rely on only local reviewers who might instantly recognise it being the ones that will be deciding. For a marker that contains only a little information on it you need to fill in the gaps. When a marker contains a lot of information you will probably need less. This is the difference between the top and bottom of the acceptable examples in the clarification.

So I would suggest that you resubmit but with more information to help verify the trail, something that might link that trail to this marker and where it is.


Still want an answer to this.

Being resolved quickly means it was AI (aka Machine Learning), not a human.

AI tends to reject things with a lot of nature in the primary picture. Trees, grass, sky, ground.

Try resubmitting with the main picture zoomed into the sign that you’re nominating.

1 Like

Ah yes the generic mile marker with the image of the Brown Thrasher, the symbol of the trail on it, on the longest named trail in Columbus, GA that spans from the historic district to the northern border (all of that is in the supporting info, and is in all of the other ones that have been accepted). That generic mile marker. Rejected on appeal…


I see about 50 of these every day. What were you thinking!

1 Like

They’re sure taking their sweet time adressing this issue.


It seems a error appeal in reason Generic Business, we need to fix it because looks like this is error reject.

And to this day, they are still removing perfectly legitimate and non-fake trail markers in the Netherlands, even though their own criteria say they’re eligible.

Someone make it make sense.

That doesn’t look like it’s a trail marker. That’s a signboard for “Traffic Exam Route”.

What about the Fall Line Trace Mile Marker above it?