Wayspot Title: Segnavia - Piazza Prinetti e Cicognola
Location (lat/lon): (45.7022489, 9.4150614)
City: Merate
Country: Italy
Screenshot of the Rejection Email (do not include your personal information):
Additional Information (if any): This is a trail marker, not a “normal route sign” as the appeal guy said. The “normal route signs” are above the trail marker as you can see in the pics. You can also clearly tell that it is a trail marker by the distance markers: “600 meters” and “1700 meters”. You can also see the number of the trail “SC1”. The waypoint also meets all the acception criterias and doesn’t meet any of the rejection ones.
I’m asking for the overturning of the decision since this is a valid waypoint and also this is the second time the community rejected it and now the appeal reviewers also rejected it. Thank you
I would definitely argue that this isn’t a trailmarker and is a (non-eligible) directional sign because all the destinations are a few hundred metres away, a trail is much longer. If SC1 really is an eligible trail then I’d suggest adding a citation into the supporting text.
It is a trail marker. There’s no arguing that. For the reasons I already stated. And your point about the locations being a few hundreds meters away (even if one is almost 2km away lmao. What are you talking about?) doesn’t make sense. This is one of the many trail markers in the area, and it happens to be one (relatively) near the end of the trail marker. I’ve never heard that for the trail markers to be eligible they have to be at least X long trails. Or they have to be the starting point of the trail and not in the middle or the end. It doesn’t make sense.
I am arguing that it’s a directional marker. If you claim that it’s a trail then it would really help to have some evidence. Do you have any references that SC1 is a trail?
It’s in Italian. Even in the title it says “18 km di sentieri” which translated is “18 km of trails”
“Of different colors (yellow, blue, green, red and orange), scattered throughout the territory”
This says there are 5 trails with different colors. The one in my submission is part of the red trail.
Yes, SC1 is the trail. Trailmarkers do vary, some are more obvious than others… I review mostly UK ones and this type of trailmarker is broadly accepted:
Here “51” is the number of the long-distance (National Cycle Network) bike route. The signs look mass-produced which is often a cause for rejection, but there are rules for the type of sign that can be displayed on the highway, especially for these larger directional signs (e.g. legibility, safety). I suspect for the SC1 signs above that there may be similar rules which is why they look mass-produced and rather like a standard directional sign. I think given the explanation we had, this sort of sign would be broadly acceptable although like the NCN signs, they may not always get past reviewers.
Key points
It is the trail that is important - so the description should focus on the trail.
Why is it good to follow this route eg what you might see or interact with.
There is no set distance requirement.
Markers by design are meant to look the same and may be mass produced - not a reason to reject.
But the marker should be fulfilling a function as an anchor for the trail - most commonly it’s at a decision point to help you stay on the correct path to follow the route.
The marker should be linkable to the trail - a name/number/symbol for example that show it is relevant to that trail
A direction sign lacks those links because it is not an anchor for a trail.
Unfortunately some reviewers still seem to focus on the sign rather than the trail.
Niantic also seems more to focus on the sign instead of the trail it self, just look ad all mine topics.
Offical trails everything but the dont like the sign.
If all ambassador point out how bad the guidlines and critiria are and why diffrent in some countries, giving sorten groups of people disadvantage what dont make sense
