CHAOS: The Confusing Wayfarer Criteria for Trail Markers

GoncaloCdMGoncaloCdM ✭✭✭
edited October 14 in Wayfarer

Please read carefully!

This past Summer, I gathered with multiple Ingress Agents and Pokémon GO Trainers to carry out a very special project: submitting valid Portal Candidates in Monsanto Forest Park.

Monsanto is a 2500-acre Forest Park in Lisbon, Portugal. It has the largest Portuguese picnic parks, the longest Lisbon walking trails and so much more. It is a very special place and it’s unfortunate that nearly no Portal candidates were submitted before.

Among the many eligible Portal candidates that we submitted, Trail Markers were one of the most frequent submissions.

Initially, we intended to submit all the Trail Markers so that we could later create a great mission banner. And that’s what we started to do.

Please keep in mind that Trail Markers are not that frequent in Portugal, nor in Monsanto.

Before Wayfarer came out, the criteria for Trail Markers was quite straightforward:

  • Trail Markers - SUGGESTED VOTE: 5*.

However, now that Wayfarer is live, a confusing detail has been added:

  • Trailheads, trail markers, mile/distance markers, etc. - Acceptable, if they have a trail name on them. Simple mile markers along a trail with nothing other than a number should be rejected.

Since this has been published, we have received the first two rejections mentioning that “The nomination doesn’t meet acceptance criteria.” Thus, we have reached to the community and many have said that the criteria for Trail Markers was the cause.

We think that the sentence “Simple mile markers along a trail with nothing other than a number should be rejected.” is quite confusing, especially for non-English speakers. Even though, we believe that it refers to mile markers like this, which don't even exist in Monsanto: https://i.imgur.com/Vdixcfj.jpg.

We would love NIA to give clear examples.

In Monsanto, there are no Mile Markers (consequentially, no “simple Mile Markers with nothing other than a number”), but there are four different types of Trail Markers:

  1. https://i.imgur.com/Pgvau2p.jpg
  2. https://i.imgur.com/QsBkiSH.jpg
  3. https://i.imgur.com/dIUiM4o.jpg
  4. https://i.imgur.com/xfHiIMO.jpg

All of these are eligible in our opinion. They are not “Simple mile markers with nothing other than a number”. 

They all have a unique ID engraved in a medal on the side, not to mention the arrows, trail(s) color(s), and other ornaments.

Would it be possible for NIA to please refer to these four types of Trail Markers and clearly state how they should be rated?

And what do you all think?

Post edited by GoncaloCdM on
Tagged:

Comments

  • All four you posted are eligible, but I personally would only give 5 starts to the first two. The number 3 would get 3*, but the 4 would get 4*.

    The 'new' criteria refers to mile markers, not trail markers. I think it's to avoid mass produced mile markers that are the same all around the world. Trail markers that have a unique identifier are definitely not mass produced.

    Also, trail markers fall under the criteria of adventurous attractions, since they lead the way through walking trails, especially in a forest park.

    tl;dr all four are eligible, but the simplest ones should get 3 to 4 stars

  • 1 and 2 are great, but 3 and 4 might take you a few tries. I'd make sure to mention that the colors indicate trails and the running man indicates whatever it's for.

  • PerringaidenPerringaiden ✭✭✭✭✭

    The criteria (written in reverse) is "Trail and mile markers with the name of the trail on them are acceptable".

    The problem is that plenty of people haven't read the updated criteria and are marking on their previous information.

  • OGMagusOGMagus ✭✭✭

    "Have you not yet learnt the rules of OPR Bingo? Please play again"

    I advise keeping your photos/locations in order so that you can easily resubmit (if closer than 25km)

  • 360 sphere so you can get 5* location will help. But when no writing is present that makes it very hard


  • TheFarixTheFarix ✭✭✭✭✭

    From my understanding, a nomination that gets too many 3-star or lower ratings for location will be rejected. To ensure that you get a higher rate for location, you need to give the review ample evidence that the marker exists at or near the location. This is where photospheres are for, and all though time consuming, will greatly improve the chance those markers will be accepted.

  • JSteve0JSteve0 ✭✭✭

    The way I read the guidelines, the first two trailmarkers should be accepted. The third is weak and might be accepted but probably will not. The fourth is a little better but the chances are probably below 50%.

  • I keep getting this one rejected:


    Gotta say it's confusing indeed because of the many arrows (which aren't eligable). It's about the top: 'Knooppunt 65' which means a junction, where several cycling routes come together. There also was a sign with a map, but this one was vandalised and still mailing to get the sign replaced without any respond.

    I think the criteria should be simplified.

    Accept if:

    • It has a official title
    • If it's part of one or several cycling / hiking routes ánd registered online.

    Reject if:

    • It only has a number
    • It only has one or several arrows, meaning it points out to a candidate, but isn't a candidate.
    • Non-permanent (attached to a tree or other obvious temp. candidates)

    Anyone else has thoughts about this?

  • OGMagusOGMagus ✭✭✭

    My first impression is that of a street sign (uneligable) and then there's all the numbers which was recently commented. I'd probably give this a rejection as well.

  • I see and yet it is fully eligable. This is indeed not the best visual example.

  • TheFarixTheFarix ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited October 16

    I stuck the word Knooppunt into Google Translate and it returned as either "node" or "junction". This doesn't appear to be a trail name, so the signs would not qualify as an acceptable waypoint as trail markers.

  • 'Knooppunten' are like the only trailmarkers the Netherlands / Germany has. Not sure if you're able to translate all of https://www.fietsnetwerk.nl because this could tell you more about this.

  • JSteve0JSteve0 ✭✭✭

    I would accept this because I assume the numbers on there are the trail names.

  • kholman1kholman1 ✭✭✭✭
    edited October 19


  • Why would a walking trail be a trail but not a biking trail? They both are ideologically the same, providing a path for cardiovascular exercise while enjoying nature. The only difference is going faster on a bike while travelling.

  • The picture I commented on, is a cycle route.

    It is not a trail marker in the sense Nia want us to see them as, thus the example images given for trail markers.

    Also, these were asked about in amas.

    The intent behind that response as I see it, suggests a cycle route would be similar to a road.

    They are areas designated for cycles, not for pedestrians.

  • cmonineedanamecmonineedaname ✭✭✭
    edited October 20

    I see where you're coming from. I would pass the marker because clearly there are 5 numbered/named routes. I obviously can't determine safety.

    Your cycling trail and pedestrian access AMA reference are definitely noteworthy. The trails I know of here are both walking and cycling, so I don't really know of any trails that wouldn't be safe on foot. I'll have to keep that in mind if I review any from other areas.

    Speaking of... lol


Sign In or Register to comment.