Pedestrian/bike tunnels - are they valid Waypoints?

lovelimes-ING

Are pedestrian/bike tunnels valid waypoints? Logically they seem like they should be, as they are the same thing as a footbridge only they go under rather than over something. Wishing this could be added to the actual Wayfarer guidelines. I have been searching and haven't found a definitive answer posted anywhere.

NorthSeaPoet-ING

I'd say that if they're part of a named trail and can be proven to be part of a named trail, then yes. Otherwise, no.

Gendgi-PGO

https://community.wayfarer.nianticlabs.com/discussion/comment/9063#Comment_9063

I agree with that. I'd also appreciate guidance, though.

We've had a few locally nominated and pass, but also a few of equal or better quality denied.

Functionally, a footbridge serves the same purpose - providing safe pedestrian access across otherwise difficult to pass terrain. They act as level 1 safeguarding for pedestrian paths to avoid crossing dangerous intersections. Both footbridges and tunnels even have significant cultural value in my community as being local hangouts and group meeting locations on bike rides or jogs. Even during social distancing orders, it was difficult for me to gain photographs of ones in my area due to people congregating at them.

oscarc1-ING

Unless there is an information sign for it, I would say no. Tunnels are just generic infrastructure and there is nothing inherently significant about them.

Functionally, a footpath serves the same purpose by providing safe pedestrian access, etc.

Not every piece of infrastructure is a point of interest, they may serve a purpose and are used as a means of connecting things or providing access, but they don't inherently promote exercise (like say a trailmarker might), have little to no cultural value (compare a tunnel to a mural or artwork for example).

If it had historical significance, it would be acceptable on its own merits. Just a quick Google suggests that the Cheviot Tunnel might be eligible under the criteria conditions given its history for the area.

lovelimes-ING

I don't know that I agree with them needing a named sign or being part of a named trail. Footbridges are not put under the same requirements and serve the same purpose.

This is why I'm hoping for an actual answer from Niantic vs. just opinions. (Not that I don't value them, but since there isn't at this point any clear guideline on them, it really is all up to each person's opinion which makes nominating them hard. Clear guidelines would avoid a lot of wasted time for people nominating and reviewers.)

tehstone-ING

All things considered, I don't think your average footbridge or tunnel really qualifies. For some reason Niantic clarified that footbridges do qualify so we have that, but tunnels still don't really meet any criteria as far as I'm concerned so until Niantic indicates otherwise I will keep rejecting them.

JSteve0-ING

I don't believe the should be accepted because they are inherently good candidates. They should have to meet some other criteria (cool looking, architecturally significant, site of a historic event), not just that they are an underpass used by pedestrians. If not, what would stop crosswalks from being accepted? Used properly, they provide safe pedestrian access for a person traveling from one side of the street to the other. I feel the same about most footbridges, but Niantic basically said they like footbridges as wayspots.

montitcha-ING

Personally, I validate if the tunnel has something uninteresting in terms of architecture or history ...

The footbridges are subject to the fact of being in a hike, or must have an interesting architecture or history. Just because they exist doesn't mean they are valid.

I don't know many hikes that pass in the middle of a park in the middle of the city.