Pedestrian Bridges
Frewfrux-PGO
Posts: 26 ✭✭
I searched for information in the forums about criteria around pedestrian bridges (thinking of those on park paths with no unique name, but also wondering about others as well). The results I got all had a warning above the post saying that the post refers to outdated criteria and directs readers to the updated criteria. The updated criteria, however, does not mention the word "bridge" even once (or, at least there are zero hits when searching for that word in the updated criteria.)
Many parks around here, especially ones at lower elevations, flood quite regularly so there are many foot bridges in them. What are the current criteria for approving or rejecting foot bridges in parks?
What about other types of pedestrian bridges? How about vehicle bridges (which typically have a unique name) with pedestrian walk-ways on them? (I assume if there's no pedestrian walkway then it's not a valid way spot, even if it's an historical bridge.)
Comments
Footbridges are great, its a landmark and a way to traverse a hiking path.
As far as other bridges, a random bridge that is for cars, no. That is unsafe pedestrian access. Also a random road bridge that just so happens to also have the sidewalks on it too (i'm thinking highway overpass sort of thing), idk I think i'd still reject that because it's basically like nominating a random stretch of road or sidewalk. Although if anyone else wants to chime in on that point please do.
Are bridges
- great places to exercise
- great places to explore
Or
- great places to socialise?
A footbridge doesn't become categorically eligible simply for existing. However, many bridges on trails or in parks help facilitate exercise and outdoor exploration. In my own region, it is very common for cyclists and pedestrians to meet & gather on the trail footbridges.
An AMA previously asked about this and received the following answer. While this text was removed from the AMA, I would consider the context similar for revising almost anything and still relevant to today's standards.
What types of bridges are and aren’t eligible?
In general, think about the specific bridge and whether it’s a clear and differentiable location for other players to find. Also, if a location is somehow important to the community, it would also be a good candidate. Our guidance for most locations is whether a location, structure, piece of art, etc. is important for exploration, promotes exercise or facilitates social connections. With regard to bridges generally, if it is accessible by foot and expected to be used as part of a named path or trail, it would meet criteria. Bridges that primarily serve cars and don’t have pedestrian access are not eligible.
Again, so this isn't taken out of context, this specific wording was published and then removed by Niantic. However, the text I bolded and italicized is exactly their new "criteria" for eligibility.
I will also add that I have personally nominated (and had approved) footbridges than I highlight their utility for providing views of nature, places where people might gather for important photo portraits, or even ones where children may frequently play under in a creek.
The above is from the September 2020 AMA, the below is from June 2021. Not sure if anything else has been stated since:
Just something to keep in mind.
Think about if a sidewalk/path is part of the infrastructure of a place, or if it was built specifically for recreation.
Infrastructure (roads, sidewalks, street lights, phone towers, irrigation, etc) are not special, not unique, not a place you'd take someone visiting from out of town. Not a a meeting place, not something you'd walk around to explore.
I think it’s a little bit regional. I see European and Asian commenters in here more critical of footbridges, but in the US, bridges in parks, golf courses, and on hiking trails are practically guaranteed acceptance.
Just please do a favor for me - in case I review them - and give them slightly interesting titles and don’t just call them Park Footbridge #1, Park Footbridge #2, etc.
EDIT: getting around this ridiculous filter.
Is there anything new around this subject? I see lots of bridges coming up lately, and they are all new bridges (a year, maybe two years old) and they are all the same. Nothing special about them, just fot and cycle bridges that we have loads around here, since we have a lot of water that has to be crossed. Should i accept them since we can gather on them (but not specific, since you also hinder the cyclist then) or reject since they are way too common?
If they are expected to be used as part of a trail, they fall under exercise criteria. If they have a unique design, they fall under explore criteria. I can't think of a reason they could fall under social criteria, but nominators can always try to make a case.
Might be a geographic specific thing. In my experience a pedestrian bridge is an unusual and interesting enough feature that they're always explore-worthy. They're fun to tromp on and look over and under and sometimes they sway or have views or interesting architecture. Definitely the kind of feature where one might say, "let's hike to the bridge" or "let's use the 1st Street Bridge." Maybe if I was someplace with a surfeit of bridges they wouldn't be POIs.
I’d say 95% of the bridges on review I see are generic.
I agree with you.
Most bridges, including pedestrian bridges, are generic and have no interesting episodes.
And most of the things approved for bridges are not the bridges themselves, but the reliefs and other decorations on the bridges.
Not many bridges are approved for the bridge itself, and most of them have a plaque at the end of the bridge that describes an interesting episode.
And bridges that are mere infrastructure would not meet the criteria for approval.
As a side note, at one time in Japan, it was popular to say that "bridges are useful for exchanges because they connect regions to regions" and other such nonsensical nonsense.
Also, I don't know who started it, but a similar nonsense explanation was "medical centers that administer preventive medicine are approved because they play a role in contributing to health," which is ridiculous.
Perhaps it was nonsense started by the same person.
However, a number of Wayfinders believed it, and this led to cases where ineligible general bridges were approved for a time.
So it was helpful that Niantic explicitly disallowed the bridge.