Waypoint far, far away from towns, villages...

Would you reject a wayspot that is in the middle of nowhere, between two villages, with no walkway to it? Usually, there is only the road connecting the two villages. Any pedestrian would have to walk along the grass **** road, but this is not very dangerous because there is almost no traffic, maybe a tractor or two per day.

I know, a walkway is mandatory, but here in Bavaria, where I live, the villages often don't have any walkways, sometimes one at the main street.

Comments

  • Jtronmoore-PGOJtronmoore-PGO Posts: 1,581 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Safe pedestrian access is what is needed. If you know the area and you have a good idea people can safely access the wayspot it should be fine. If its no walk way and beside a busy highway I would vote to reject. This is where you have to use some logic to the reviewing process.

    Being in the middle of no where doesn’t really matter. What matters is if it meets criteria and acceptance criteria without being under the rejection criteria

  • KetaSkooter-INGKetaSkooter-ING Posts: 168 ✭✭✭

    For rural areas, safe access means can a person visit the area safely, is there room for a few people to be around. A rural low speed road qualifies in my mind.

  • Mormegil71-INGMormegil71-ING Posts: 202 ✭✭✭

    Walkways are not mandatory, but safety is. If you safely can walk beside the road, it's ok. Locations way out in the countryside usually does not have walkways, but are still safe to walk to, because there is hardly any traffic.

  • AScarletSabre-PGOAScarletSabre-PGO Posts: 754 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited April 2021

    The game(s) were designed with people who like to walk in mind, not for people who are afraid to or refuse to leave their vehicles to get a bit of exercise. If at least one person can safely access the nomination (e.g. along a public footpath) and the nomination is not on private land (such as a farm) then it should be accepted. We should not reject nominations simply because they are increasable by motor vehicle.

  • MargariteDVille-INGMargariteDVille-ING Posts: 2,656 ✭✭✭✭✭

    First, it would need to meet one of the four criteria. For example, if we're talking about a city limit sign that merely marks a boundary with no artistic or historic relevance, then no.

    If it meets a criteria, THEN it would face rejection reasons. Your supporting info can make a case that it has pedestrian access, and is relavent. Supporting picture could include a parking lot and/or bench, for example.

Sign In or Register to comment.