Russia Wayfarer Challenge: Earn double the rewards, plus 10 Upgrades, by reaching 7,000 Wayspots added by 16 June, 2021! Learn More

What does the community think on Public Footpath markers from the UK?

PkmnTrainerJ-INGPkmnTrainerJ-ING Posts: 218 ✭✭✭

Recently I’ve come across several live POI for Public Footpaths.

These aren’t named trails and are very very very common across the UK. As you can see below, they’re just a disc saying “Public Footpath” and maybe the name of the local council.

It’s not part of the same trail like say South West Coast Path or Lady Anne Way, but a group of unconnected, unnamed markers that just indicate where the public is allowed to walk. Unlike a named trail, you would find no information on a lot of public footpaths online. I don’t think they’re significant enough to meet any criteria myself but wanted to see what the consensus was.


  • NorthSeaPoet-INGNorthSeaPoet-ING Posts: 749 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited June 8

    Personally, I'm not keen on them because they're not exactly trail markers, nor are they anything exciting or special.

    I have seen some arguments from other submitters and reviewers that these "encourage exercise and exploration", which I suspect is how some have slipped through, but in essence they're nothing more than rural sign posts that point in a direction that people can walk without trespassing or having any legal issues come to bite them.

    Edit: I've also seen arguments that because the new criteria apparently doesn't explicit say that it must be markers for named trails, that makes these okay to submit and approve. Personally I'm in disagreement with that idea since they're nothing special.

  • HankWolfman-PGOHankWolfman-PGO Posts: 124 ✭✭✭

    I'm also not keen on them, but as you say, the new criteria isn't as specific as the old criteria, and people are successfully taking advantage of this.

  • SlicedPeas-INGSlicedPeas-ING Posts: 67 ✭✭

    These footpaths, that's to do with Right to Ramble, am I right?

  • Belahzur-INGBelahzur-ING Posts: 102 ✭✭✭

    Not a fan of them, as others have said, it's just a footpath where UK people are allowed to walk freely and legally, they aren't part of a trail, they aren't anything specific or interesting, and should not be approved.

    Secondly, Nia need to have a process to remove things that were approved that shouldn't of been approved to begin with, generally Nia only remove things if it's unsafe, prp or a school. They need to also have a removal for things that don't meet acceptance criteria, not because it's it's a school, but because it's just a generic doesn't meet criteria submission as a whole, no matter what it is, but this logic can also be applied to old legacy things brought in from either seed portals and grandfathered things (military bases hello Niantic lawsuit your welcome)

    Lastly, we are all aware that /some/ groups will approve them because they're taught that MOAR is better and they'll approve literally anything if it benefits them and no in-line with the acceptance criteria.

  • quaaag-INGquaaag-ING Posts: 8 ✭✭

    If all of these footpath thing were eligible there would be pokestops n Portals everywhere, wouldn't be able to get away from the bleedin things unless you were in a school but even then someone will b daft n put em in a school anyway and get em accepted

  • gazzas89-PGOgazzas89-PGO Posts: 632 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Yeah I agree with the majority here, not very good portals. Admittedly, I could maybe see an argument if this is in the middle.of the country side and is a path that's used for exercise, but then that would be on the submitter to prove me wrong and even then it would be a 3/4 at a push. The majority though are usually at the edge of suburban areas or villages and not really do much from what I've found

  • RedsoxMark-PGORedsoxMark-PGO Posts: 51 ✭✭

    I've been generally rating them 4* based on clarifications I've read here about trail markers.

  • Innerlize-INGInnerlize-ING Posts: 4 ✭✭

    With the clarifications which include an actual trailermarker name.

    I'd give them the correct stars for acceptation but without name I wouldn't.

  • Roli112-PGORoli112-PGO Posts: 714 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Name is not required since the AMA criteria clarifications from November.

  • NorthSeaPoet-INGNorthSeaPoet-ING Posts: 749 ✭✭✭✭✭

    The current criteria is so vague that it doesn't actually state if it needs a name or not, so it's not entirely accurate to say "name is not required".

    The criteria now is either exploration, exercise, or socialisation. Arguments cam be made that the public footpath/Bridleway markers and sign posts meet the two criteria, being exploration and exercise, but it's a hard sell at best, since they're not trail markers - they're public footpath markers.

    Ramblers UK has a page that points out the differences between some of the markers that can be found in the UK:

  • Roli112-PGORoli112-PGO Posts: 714 ✭✭✭✭✭

    You replied to my reply about a person rejecting nominations for lack of name.

  • Innerlize-INGInnerlize-ING Posts: 4 ✭✭

    We need some first page news on new clarifications on wayfarer page itself instead of highlighted poi..

    I don't see it on the criteria page even.

    Thanks for clearing that up haven't reviewed in a while but good to know.

  • SlicedPeas-INGSlicedPeas-ING Posts: 67 ✭✭

    This is where the confusion and controversy sets in. A public footpath is a very defined thing in the UK. It does not exist in the US. I don't know enough to say if there are analogs in other places. In the US, 'footpath' doesn't have a legal definition and is essentially a synonym for hiking trail. So if you ask a person in the US if a public footpath is legit, they'll say yes because hiking trails are long established as legitimate. However, my understanding of the concept of a footpath is that it's closest analog in the US is a sidewalk(pavement), because those are pretty much the only public Right of Way that we have.

    To be clear, I'm not for or against them, I'm just trying to clarify for folks who aren't familiar with the distinction and may be deeply confused.

Sign In or Register to comment.