This one is not visually interesting nor is it informative, but path markers are often accepted and are certainly within the "go outside and do stuff" spirit of Ingress.
"Candidate: Trail Marker Policy: Accept Suggested Vote: ++++ ACCEPT. Falls under the criteria of adventurous tourist attractions and encourages walk and exercise."
Roses Kingston , based on the example in the OPR guide, I would give it 4-stars. If it's within a dozen meters of another nearly identical marker that's a portal, I guess rejecting it would be a balanced approach. But to me, the guide says it is portalworthy.
Path markers In General should get good ratings, but they have to be there for a reason. Ie. Mark a trail,intersection, or trail head. This one does neither. It looks like a gas main emergency vent, that’s been co opted into marking a trail. More like a don’t trip on me sign.
For the UK this should fall under the OPR category for "street sign" Candidate: City/Street Sign Policy: Reject Suggested Vote:* REJECT regular street signs/city signs that have no historical significance
The symbol used is designates a mixed pedestrian and cycle route (note that this is required as it is not generally permitted to cycle on a pedestrian pavement in the UK). This has no more value as a portal than a Yield sign. For reference UK traffic signs can be found here https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/traffic-signs
For it to be classified as a trail marker there must first be a designated tail, no trail information has been given.
This one is not visually interesting nor is it informative, but path markers are often accepted and are certainly within the "go outside and do stuff" spirit of Ingress.
ReplyDeleteFrom https://opr.ingress.com/guide
ReplyDelete"Candidate: Trail Marker
Policy: Accept
Suggested Vote: ++++
ACCEPT. Falls under the criteria of adventurous tourist attractions and encourages walk and exercise."
When it's just a local council marker?
ReplyDeleteRoses Kingston , based on the example in the OPR guide, I would give it 4-stars. If it's within a dozen meters of another nearly identical marker that's a portal, I guess rejecting it would be a balanced approach. But to me, the guide says it is portalworthy.
ReplyDeleteOf course not. That one's removable
ReplyDeletePath markers In General should get good ratings, but they have to be there for a reason. Ie. Mark a trail,intersection, or trail head. This one does neither. It looks like a gas main emergency vent, that’s been co opted into marking a trail. More like a don’t trip on me sign.
ReplyDeleteFor the UK this should fall under the OPR category for "street sign"
ReplyDeleteCandidate: City/Street Sign
Policy: Reject
Suggested Vote:*
REJECT regular street signs/city signs that have no historical significance
The symbol used is designates a mixed pedestrian and cycle route (note that this is required as it is not generally permitted to cycle on a pedestrian pavement in the UK). This has no more value as a portal than a Yield sign. For reference UK traffic signs can be found here https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/traffic-signs
For it to be classified as a trail marker there must first be a designated tail, no trail information has been given.
I'm overruled by people with better local knowledge... as it should be. :-)
ReplyDeleteLES Dotdot spot on; next thing you know, every directional roadsign would get added as a "trail marker" 😕
ReplyDeleteSure I saw this one too...came to the same conclusion as Les and OP - street sign.
ReplyDelete