My submission got denied firstly because community marked it as ‘‘not permanent or temporary’’. After explaining that this is a permanent, I’m surprised that trails such as a path to museum and to famous local historical structure doesn’t meet the wayfarer criteria.
I’d totally agree with street corners not being a wayspot and also for a town name. But a trail leading to the national museum, that’s other thing.
Both examples aren’t trails. They are directions to interesting spot. Trailmarkers allow you to follow a specific trail or route. That is now not the case.
And not permanent or distinct; emphasize the distinct part.
if reviewers considers as just a direction sign, it isn’t distinct, so it’s a valid rejection reason.
If you have a look at Trails & Markers, you can see the reasoning.
There is a difference between a Trail Marker and a directional sign that tells you where something is. This is not a trail marker, but a directional sign, so does not meet criteria. If you believe this is a named trail, you can provide the evidence of this.
Regarding not permanent and distinct, this comes up if:
* reviewers did not think the object is permanent
* reviewers did not think the object is distinct
* reviewers did not think the object meets any criteria (exercise, explore, social) and wanted to explicitly reject it, so reject for not “permanent and distinct” because that is the advice from Scopely Explore
The museum is the eligible thing, not the arrow directing you to the museum.
Personally I think these are eligible. This is meant to inform you and guide you to interesting things nearby. It serves the same purpose as a map by encouraging exploration and provides extra details to pedestrians.
This is different from a basic traffic sign meant to direct cars. This is clearly directing pedestrians.
Just because a sign guides pedestrians instead of cars doesn’t mean it isn’t generic infrastructure. The interesting things are the actual POIs, not a sign telling you they exist. The only borderline case is if there’s a map imo.
But isn’t the express purpose of this sign to encourage exploration of town by pedestrians? Generic things can still be eligible if thier purpose supports one of the three criteria. For example, generic playgrounds, identical trail signs, chain gyms, chain coffee shops, generic picnic tables.
Let’s not compare apples to oranges. What is a “generic playground”? A playground is a playground is a playground. A trail marker is an anchor for that part of the trail, a chain gym is a place for exercise, coffee shops and picnic tables are both eligible as places for socializing.
What encourages me to explore is the POI a sign is pointing to, not the sign itself. I don’t walk around to go see that sign. I don’t walk around to see a trail marker, but I walk on a specific route to see that specific part of the trail. That’s the difference.
Whether you agree with the criteria or not there is 100% evidence that these should be rejected. There is no difference between the 1 from the OP and the 1 shown as Reject in the Criteria.
The only difference is that OPs nomination has pedestrian symbols. However I will let the discussion drop here.
If you look closely, it says that it 350 meters by foot to the National museum in that direction, and 400 meters to Emona’s Northern something.
This even more supports that they are direction markers, instead of trail markers.