Knooppunten / Junction discussion
So the latest AMA gave away that trailmarkers only can be accepted if they have a title and aren't just a pole with a number on it. The Dutch community was divided by this statement, making the discussion even worse, costing many players agreements, because sometimes they DO are accepting and sometimes DON'T. I actually rather skip them now.
'Knooppunten' are points mostly in nature and in The Netherlands mostly cycling related (because we're a cycling country, but there are also some for walking and in some area's I've even spotted some for horse riding)
Cyclers use them to navigate a route to cycle. It's very similar to walking missions. All 'Knooppunt' signs or poles are waypoints part of the route. There are many routes made for the people, but online on sites like fietsroutenetwerk.nl it's also possible to manifacture your own route based on the waypoints registred there. It tells how to cycle and how long it takes, as seen on the screenshot. (I plan on making banners from the popular routes in my area)
The screenshot also shows the most seen forms of the signs. The one with map included is the most populair one and is most of the time accepted. However the poles and smaller signs are open for discussion and are harder to properly rate and end up in queune longer because it's skip material.
It would be nice to have a propper comment from Niantic in order to end this discussion in how to rate them.

Comments
If it's not for people on foot they should be rejected for no safe pedestrian access
They aren't trail signs because they are not naming any trails. Instead, they are much like road/street signs, which should be rejected as mass-produced objects.
@TheFarix we in the Netherlands have these kind of trail or walk routes only we number them. The shown issue is the interjunction of 2 different routes for example walkout junction 23 where route 17, 53 and 71 meet together so from this junction you can take the desired route.
We nearly do not have any walk trails with real names attached to them... Throughout the country we do have walk routes with these kind of junctions/intersections marker to find you way around wich indicate The many routes you can take in an area.
They are also available in an app. Wich uses the junctiins/intersections for marking the way.
This one tells just as much information as the trails I provided and is on the Wayfarer site as 'eligable wayspot'. This is the confusing part I was talking about.
I don't know why I have so many disagrees on that post. Krug has stated that it doesn't matter if it can be accessed by cyclists, the rule is for Pedestrians. If it's a bike trail that pedestrians can't use that isn't safe for them.
Also that example is a named trail. It says it right there "Stream Trail"
Guess because it's not that relevant. Most places safe for cyclers in The Netherlands are safe for everyone, with the exclusion of the so called 'Fietsensnelwegen' (Bicycle highways) which don't contain these junctions.
I also read it wrong the first time actually.
Because frankly, it is a bad ruling.
There's no such thing as cyclist-only trails in most of the Europe (and I assume that the same applies to most of the world). Pedestrians are allowed on those routes. Secondly, even on the rare cycle-only routes, people stop for breaks all the time. To have a drink, have a snack, or yes, to fiddle with their phones. To say that it'is not 'safe for pedestrians' is absurd.
You may disagree but its niantic rules so deal with it.
Yes, in the Netherlands most bicycleroads are very safe voor pedestrians. So waypoints along these roads can be approved. I cann't speak for other country's. About the 'knooppunten' routes, they are our trailsigns. So i approve them. But only the 'knooppunten' themselves, not the markers pointing to the 'knooppunten'.
There ARE biking paths in some areas though where a pedestrian would be unsafe because there is no walking path. These cases have been asked about in AMAs and we were told to reject them.
could you point us to that ama question?
because ive never seen it
Have a look back though all of them it is there that they are not acceptable. Also may learn some things. I did
I have been following them since they started, I know most of the questions without even needing to search them. There is no mention of cycling roads being unsafe for pedestrians
Same here, however some are confusing, because they have undersign which are markers, while the title 'Knooppunt' at the top is included. Some 'Knooppunten' look like a marker pointer, but are in fact a 'Knooppunt'. (Like my example right bottom in first post)
Sorry for answering so slowly. I just worked a 13 hour day. With google plus gone and no archive I can immediately access, it'll be slow finding the specific question,.but I remember seeing one before that asked about bicycle paths (or something similar) to clarify pedestrian access, and the answer said you have to be able to safely WALK there (walking was emphasized). Maybe @RedSoloCup has a master log if he's able to find it faster than I can (please I'm so tiiiiired, lol).
Yes this is exactly the question that made me think the bike trails should be rejected
To answer @Zaltys @XQlusioN and @GravinValoRia, while this isn't the AMA question I know I saw, it's apparently come up multiple times.
So it HAS to be safe by foot (not saying your examples weren't, but the conversation drifted to this issue after @Kliffington responded about safety). To me, this means somewhere I could reasonably walk to from a stopping point, whether that be from driving or cycling.
So on a cycling path wouldn't automatically get rejected by me, but if it doesn't have a walking lane or somewhere to pull off the path, then it's gonna be 1*. Rejections really are less common (for safety anyway) than approvals, because usually there's a safe stopping point at the nomination, especially with trail markers. The only trail object I can even remember rejecting for safety was a cycling bridge with no pedestrian walkway. If you stopped on that particular one you'd get smashed by the next biker coming in fast.
While it deviated slightly from the primary questions in the post, @Kliffington did have a point. The safety reminder didn't deserve disagreement spam. You might notice a new insightful mark on it.
All good, I just remembered that answer and I know that my town has bike paths that aren't safe for pedestrians but there are also trails that have access for both.
Vast majority of cycling routes (in Europe, at least) are mixed, there are no separate lanes for cyclists and pedestrians. It's been twenty years since I toured Europe on bike, but I doubt that it has changed much in that time.
As a rule of thumb, pedestrians and cyclists are allowed anywhere outside of highways. If there's no separate lane for light traffic, then you just bike or walk on the side of the road. That's considered perfectly normal here. Roads may be mainly intended for motor vehicles or cycling, but that doesn't mean that they lacks pedestrian access.
Just to comment on the AMA question:
It never said to reject cycling roads. It said to reject if no safe pedestrian access. Which has always been the case
That's what I said in the first place... SOME aren't safe for pedestrians and wouldn't qualify... emphasis on SOME.