Trail Markers without a name are not abuse. My counter argument is why is someone being so strict with the guide to think that being one small factor from being valid is abuse? With trail markers no name markers used to be approved and a lot of the non-named markers I saw were in national parks areas honestly areas with so few portals. That being said just because niantic updated the guide to say it must have a name doesn't constitute abuse for submissions without a name not everyone is going to read the wayfarer guide. I also would like to say something else some of the negative comments I have seen towards markers is also not right people telling others that 911 markers are an absolute no even if they have the trail name well they are culturally significant if an player of any of the three games comes across something or gets lost and needs to contact authorities for help if they have their game open it would show up at a considerable distance before they are at said location. Now trail markers with abbreviated names still have names my metro area uses WRT, WRC, BB, FC for example on the markers signifying the name of the trail the markers aren't simply a marker with numbers. They may not be the most unique visually or interesting to some but the serve a purpose. I call trail markers a functional waypoint. Things like a mural is yes the interesting and culturally unique waypoint they also ask for. NIantic asks for different types of waypoints some might be more unique than others. Playgrounds, baseball fields etc. are not visually unique but they are about community gatherings.
Curious if we could get an official statement from Niantic @NianticCasey weather or not Trailmarkers with insignia as alternative to a name would be eligible or not.
Here we have a insignia of a Clover flower as its called Cloverpath Trail (Translated from Kløversti). They exist in different colors accommodating different Trails of different length.
So, the niantic guideline says approve trail markers that have trail name, but rejectif it is a simple mile marker.
Your nominations have a trail logo, city logo, and distance.
Niantic guidance doesn't cover what to do with a "trail logo," because... for most places, such a thing doesnt exist. Without guidance, reviewers must make their best guess.
Some reviewers saw a trail marker, decided the logo was good enough, and approved.
Other reviewers saw a 2-4ft tall post with distance marked on it, but not a trail name, decided that was the same thing as a mile marker, and rejected.
And some of them rejected with weird criteria.
Seems like until Niantic provides earer guidance, you're SOL. No name, but distance=mile marker to some reviewers. Mile marker=automatic rejection. Logo=same as name=approve to others. Can you fault either of their logic? The system has two options, approve or reject. Ther is no "hold off and ask Niantic for clarification" button in the review process.
A mile marker would just be a number. If it's more than a number then I'm afraid you might need to engage your brain and spend an extra second or two. Sorry about that.
A clarification would be really useful here, to reduce the burden on reviewers. I see lots and of submissions that fall into this gap between simple mile markers (where we have a definite no) and named trail markers (where we have a definite yes). I also see lots of 'footpath to' common road signs, as we don't have a clear definition of a 'trail', as some people are claiming a slightly worn away area of grass leading to a foot bridge is a 'trail'. and therefore pretty much every footbridge in any park anywhere is 'on a trail' and therefore eligible.
Having a clear and definite statement along the lines of 'do not submit trail markers or footpath signs unless they have the name of the trail on them' would save reviewers hours. Adding 'trial marker without trail name' and 'generic footpath sign, not part of a named trail'' to the rejection reasons would also really help stop the flood of these submissions.
Mile markers are included in the guidelines for Trail Markers if they have the name of the trail. This is truly one of the most straightforward guidelines they have. People may not like the standards required but it's definitely not unclear. Any type of trail marker on a trail that has a trail name listed should be accepted. They didn't restrict them to Trail Heads.
The second sentence is them adding the old guideline clarification. It's an example of a rejection not a contradiction. The standard is if it has a trail name listed yes, if it doesn't no. I get that a lot of their guidelines are written in a confusing and open ended way but this one is straightforward, it seems like people are overthinking it because they don't like the necessity of a trail name.
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.
I could be wrong on this, but no matter how I read the above to me it sounds like Trail markers that are above simple basic ones should be acceptable. I do think there is room for clarification on the updated guide. Otherwise having the second sentence doesn't make sense. It should really be "Only acceptable if they have the trail name listed".
How? It clearly lists types of markers and says acceptable *if* they have a trail name. The second sentence is a clarification example because it's something that people have asked about in the past.
The first sentence doesn't make sense at all if we go by your interpretation.
This is why I have stopped reviewing. Reviewers are screaming and crying about submitters and have forced Niantic to add abuse reporting for submitters. There needs to be a way to report abuse by reviewers. I'm not going to waste my time helping out a community of self important ego maniacs who believe they are the high counsel of intellectual waypoints. There are criteria and they should be followed, by EVERYONE! I've been in the Caribean for the past 3 weeks and on many occasion I thought, "This would make a good waypoint". Then I thought about the way my submissions have been treated to date and kept walking. I'm not helping out a system that has flipped me the finger. Coming back home and reading the posts online from the self important people in the online forums let me know that I was right to keep walking. @NianticCasey I really hope you guys are looking at both sides of the coin. There are a lot of people out there making up their own rules.
most reviewers? No it is reviewers who go against the guidelines deciding they don't agree with the guide. My area gets trail markers approved all the time and no the just a post with arrows and no trail names is commonly denied. People my not agree on mile posts but the guide was updated to allow them if they have the trail name. It literally says a simple marker with just numbers is invalid so if it has an abbreviated name and the submitter can prove what it is don't auto reject. Maybe if reviewers actually read the guide and not use personal bias when reviewing?
Adding my own local question about symbols as trail markers. Around Europe, there are "pilgrim trails" only marked by this symbol. Map for my country is at https://pilegrimsleden.no/kart.
There's no text, then again it's not just a number either. And there are many, many many of these..
Comments
Forum word filter broke your embed there, chief.
Maybe try linking to it from a different host?
Trail Markers without a name are not abuse. My counter argument is why is someone being so strict with the guide to think that being one small factor from being valid is abuse? With trail markers no name markers used to be approved and a lot of the non-named markers I saw were in national parks areas honestly areas with so few portals. That being said just because niantic updated the guide to say it must have a name doesn't constitute abuse for submissions without a name not everyone is going to read the wayfarer guide. I also would like to say something else some of the negative comments I have seen towards markers is also not right people telling others that 911 markers are an absolute no even if they have the trail name well they are culturally significant if an player of any of the three games comes across something or gets lost and needs to contact authorities for help if they have their game open it would show up at a considerable distance before they are at said location. Now trail markers with abbreviated names still have names my metro area uses WRT, WRC, BB, FC for example on the markers signifying the name of the trail the markers aren't simply a marker with numbers. They may not be the most unique visually or interesting to some but the serve a purpose. I call trail markers a functional waypoint. Things like a mural is yes the interesting and culturally unique waypoint they also ask for. NIantic asks for different types of waypoints some might be more unique than others. Playgrounds, baseball fields etc. are not visually unique but they are about community gatherings.
Curious if we could get an official statement from Niantic @NianticCasey weather or not Trailmarkers with insignia as alternative to a name would be eligible or not.
Here we have a insignia of a Clover flower as its called Cloverpath Trail (Translated from Kløversti). They exist in different colors accommodating different Trails of different length.
So, the niantic guideline says approve trail markers that have trail name, but rejectif it is a simple mile marker.
Your nominations have a trail logo, city logo, and distance.
Niantic guidance doesn't cover what to do with a "trail logo," because... for most places, such a thing doesnt exist. Without guidance, reviewers must make their best guess.
Some reviewers saw a trail marker, decided the logo was good enough, and approved.
Other reviewers saw a 2-4ft tall post with distance marked on it, but not a trail name, decided that was the same thing as a mile marker, and rejected.
And some of them rejected with weird criteria.
Seems like until Niantic provides earer guidance, you're SOL. No name, but distance=mile marker to some reviewers. Mile marker=automatic rejection. Logo=same as name=approve to others. Can you fault either of their logic? The system has two options, approve or reject. Ther is no "hold off and ask Niantic for clarification" button in the review process.
A mile marker would just be a number. If it's more than a number then I'm afraid you might need to engage your brain and spend an extra second or two. Sorry about that.
And the guide says mile posts are valid if the name is included.
Even then, they get rejected.
A clarification would be really useful here, to reduce the burden on reviewers. I see lots and of submissions that fall into this gap between simple mile markers (where we have a definite no) and named trail markers (where we have a definite yes). I also see lots of 'footpath to' common road signs, as we don't have a clear definition of a 'trail', as some people are claiming a slightly worn away area of grass leading to a foot bridge is a 'trail'. and therefore pretty much every footbridge in any park anywhere is 'on a trail' and therefore eligible.
Having a clear and definite statement along the lines of 'do not submit trail markers or footpath signs unless they have the name of the trail on them' would save reviewers hours. Adding 'trial marker without trail name' and 'generic footpath sign, not part of a named trail'' to the rejection reasons would also really help stop the flood of these submissions.
And wayfarer has a clarification in the purposely confusion criteria section about them. I'd agree that mile markers are not valid.
Mile markers are included in the guidelines for Trail Markers if they have the name of the trail. This is truly one of the most straightforward guidelines they have. People may not like the standards required but it's definitely not unclear. Any type of trail marker on a trail that has a trail name listed should be accepted. They didn't restrict them to Trail Heads.
The confusion comes in the second sentence which says not to approve Simple Markers with just numbers on them.
So we know clearly 100% to approval all Trail Markers with names.
What about ones that are much more detailed than just a number on them but don't include the name.
Such as:
The second sentence is them adding the old guideline clarification. It's an example of a rejection not a contradiction. The standard is if it has a trail name listed yes, if it doesn't no. I get that a lot of their guidelines are written in a confusing and open ended way but this one is straightforward, it seems like people are overthinking it because they don't like the necessity of a trail name.
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.
I could be wrong on this, but no matter how I read the above to me it sounds like Trail markers that are above simple basic ones should be acceptable. I do think there is room for clarification on the updated guide. Otherwise having the second sentence doesn't make sense. It should really be "Only acceptable if they have the trail name listed".
How? It clearly lists types of markers and says acceptable *if* they have a trail name. The second sentence is a clarification example because it's something that people have asked about in the past.
The first sentence doesn't make sense at all if we go by your interpretation.
It doesn't matter. Most reviewers will say "I don't care, I don't like them, so I will reject them".
This is why I have stopped reviewing. Reviewers are screaming and crying about submitters and have forced Niantic to add abuse reporting for submitters. There needs to be a way to report abuse by reviewers. I'm not going to waste my time helping out a community of self important ego maniacs who believe they are the high counsel of intellectual waypoints. There are criteria and they should be followed, by EVERYONE! I've been in the Caribean for the past 3 weeks and on many occasion I thought, "This would make a good waypoint". Then I thought about the way my submissions have been treated to date and kept walking. I'm not helping out a system that has flipped me the finger. Coming back home and reading the posts online from the self important people in the online forums let me know that I was right to keep walking. @NianticCasey I really hope you guys are looking at both sides of the coin. There are a lot of people out there making up their own rules.
Amen
most reviewers? No it is reviewers who go against the guidelines deciding they don't agree with the guide. My area gets trail markers approved all the time and no the just a post with arrows and no trail names is commonly denied. People my not agree on mile posts but the guide was updated to allow them if they have the trail name. It literally says a simple marker with just numbers is invalid so if it has an abbreviated name and the submitter can prove what it is don't auto reject. Maybe if reviewers actually read the guide and not use personal bias when reviewing?
Adding my own local question about symbols as trail markers. Around Europe, there are "pilgrim trails" only marked by this symbol. Map for my country is at https://pilegrimsleden.no/kart.
There's no text, then again it's not just a number either. And there are many, many many of these..