Invalid Wayspot Appeal

Title of the Wayspot: Broxtowe County Trail Marker - Winster Close

Location: 52.937069, -1.214920,-1.214920&z=18

City: Nottingham

Country: United Kingdom

Screenshot of the Rejection Email:

Photos to support your claim:

Additional information:

This is unfortunately a faked POI. Rather than being a real trail marker, this is an image of a trail marker which has been printed onto a piece of paper and attached to a street bollard with adhesive. Google Street View from June 2021 shows the cycling bollard without such a trail marker, which is more accurate than the user-submitted photosphere at the location from December 2021.

Photo - 202204a: this image shows a close-up of the 'trail marker', demonstrating that it is loosely stuck onto the cycling bollard with an adhesive. This also does not match the method the local Council uses to manufacture and affix trail markers to street furniture (discussed below).

Photo - 202204b: this image shows that the 'trail marker' was completely temporary and easy to remove, as I was able to detach it from the cycling bollard with no resistance. There is no dedicated application point for a trail marker on this bollard, as the council did not construct them with the intention of putting trail markers on them. There is also a distinct lack of adhesive on the bollard.

Photo - 202204c: this image provides a clearer view of the 'trail marker'. It is clear that this is an image of a trail marker, which has been printed onto a piece of paper and then cut out manually. Note the inconsistent cutting around the edges, with parts of the brown outer ring of the marker missing noticeable chunks. The quality of the printing is also apparent, as the green colour is patchy and the edges of the various shapes and text are blurry and unclear.

Photo - 202204d: this image is an example of what a trail marker looks like in this area. The trail does indeed follow this road, and there are several of these markers along the length of Woodside Road (found at Lenton Abbey Park to the north of this location, and at Austrey Avenue and Beeston Lane to the south). Trail markers officially installed by the local County Council are printed directly onto a piece of sheet metal and attached to metal lampposts using brackets. They are not stickers loosely stuck on a bollard. They are also of much better quality, lacking any of the inaccurate cutting or printing issues outlined in 202204c above.

Photo - 202204e: this image shows some of the other bollards along this road. It is clear that none of the other bollards have stickers or trail markers on them, further proving that this 'trail marker' is not an official marker by the local Council.


As stated above, this is unfortunately a faked wayspot. Please remove it from the database.


  • HeyItsPugs-INGHeyItsPugs-ING Posts: 10 ✭✭

    Thank you for your response @NianticVK. I decided to take a couple of days to form a response to the submitter's comment above, and politely suggest that you reconsider your decision to not remove this Portal.

    To begin, we can discard all ambiguities regarding those involved. The original submitter has responded above, doubling down on their faked Wayspot. In their rebuttal of my report, they suggest that it is a legitimate Broxtowe Country Trail Marker (BCTM) and has been installed by the Council. They accuse me of vandalism through my removal of the sticker. They suggest that the Council has reinstalled a new BCTM only a couple of days after I removed the original, matching the exact same design. They suggest that there is another BCTM matching this style on an adjacent bollard. Finally, they propose the reason that the Council has used a sticker design for this marker rather than the metal versions evident throughout the trail – the local area lacks sufficient metal lampposts to install a BCTM onto in this area. I refute these points and maintain my argument that this Wayspot has been faked by the above submitter.

    1. Replaced with new 'Marker'

    I want to begin with a reaction to the comment that "after [the Wayspot] was removed by the reporter and reported missing to the local council, the marker has been replaced with a new trail marker in the same position, displaying that it is meant to be a permanent addition to the trail". This places far too much faith in the Broxtowe Borough Council to respond to reports or requests from the public. I removed the original sticker on the morning of Friday, 22nd April. The submitter responded above during the day on Thursday 28th April, and I will assume that they took the three attached photos on the same day. 

    The Broxtowe Borough Council's contact details and hours of operation can be found here: There does not appear to be a dedicated channel to report a missing BCTM, so I would assume that if someone did contact the Council about me removing this sticker, they would do so via email or over the phone. As a resident of this town, I can report that the Council does not respond to such requests rapidly. It is not uncommon to wait several weeks to hear back about Council Tax queries (a topic that the Council has a keen interest in, given that it is a source of revenue for them). Road signs can remain vandalised with graffiti or stickers for months before anything is done about it. The idea that the Council would immediately respond to such a request and adhere a new sticker to the cycling bollard within a couple of days is questionable.

    The submitter suggests this merely to justify why a new sticker exists in the location after I took their original sticker away and disposed of it. The submitter found out that their original sticker went missing and proceeded to make a new one at home to replace it. This assertion is supported by the sudden appearance of a new sticker on another cycle bollard nearby (Photo2 of the submitter's response). This sticker did not exist when I removed the first one on the 22nd, suggesting that the submitter made two stickers and added this second one to try to justify the existence of the first. I would also hazard to guess that they made these stickers after I made my original report, using the reasons I gave to remove the Wayspot as pointers to try to improve the attempt at a fake Wayspot.

    As an aside, I have emailed the Council about these stickers to check with them about their legitimacy. I have yet to hear back (and based on the above, I expect that it will be a while before they respond about a trail marker enquiry). When I get a response from them, I will add it to this discussion thread if needed.

    2. Large-Scale Collection of Trail Markers

    The submitter claims that the two stickers on the cycle bollards exist as "a more large-scale addition of trail markers along this route to improve the quality of the trail and ease in following the route". As such, they contend that the Council wishes to establish more trail markers along this stretch of Woodside Road. This is false for several reasons.

    Above is a collection of photos and maps within two PowerPoint files (collated for ease of access). I would like to refer you to Slide 1 of Collection_Part1, which is a map of the Bollards along Woodside Road. I have added 24 coloured circles along Woodside Road – 21 in yellow and three in orange. The orange circles are the three BCTMs installed by the Council along this stretch of road. All three can be found in the Wayfarer database: Number 1 is the "Broxtowe Country Trail Marker – Derby Road"; number two is the "Broxtowe Country Trail Marker – Lenton Abbey Park"; number three is the "Broxtowe Country Trail Marker – Austrey Avenue". Details can be found below:

    BCTM Derby Road - 52.939113, -1.215843,-1.2158437,3a,75y,38.99h,96.69t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s6WPOW2oIEfOqsYt_RcHSYw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

    BCTM Lenton Abbey Park - 52.938354, -1.215983,-1.2163714,3a,74.9y,91.6h,82.19t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sXcBLJ2LLP-MsL4y9qu6CLA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192 (from the northbound side perspective, the Street View on the southbound side is 10 years old)

    BCTM Austrey Avenue - 52.935582, -1.209332,-1.209209,3a,75y,336.56h,74.55t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sKLelkE8BPlUFdId1Lgdcbw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

    Please note that all three BCTMs are on the pavement adjacent to the southbound side of Woodside Road. Throughout this response, I will discuss street furniture on both sides of the road. However, all BCTMs appear on the southbound side of both Woodside Road and, subsequently, University Boulevard as the trail travels south to the A6005. The remaining 21 yellow circles, labelled A through U, are the black cycle bollards found along Woodside Road. I have taken photos of all the cycle bollards from both a northbound and southbound perspective. These photos can be found in Slides 3-9 of Collection_Part1 (A-J) and Slides 1-8 of Collection_Part2 (K-U). These photos were taken on the evening of Thursday 28th April (with the photos for K & L showing the exact time at the bus stop).

    Each photo shows the view on both sides of the bollards. The image on the left looks north, and the image on the right looks south. Cycle Bollards K and N, highlighted with red outlines on the Bollard map, are the two bollards that the submitter contends have stickers attached. The respective photos (see slides 10 and 12) show the stickers and their exact placement when I arrived. All other bollards are completely devoid of stickers or trail markers, and this is a point that both the submitter and I should agree upon. If in any further correspondence from the submitter, new trail markers magically appear on any of these bollards (or any other street furniture along the trail) matching the sticker design in the disputed Wayspot, it will become blatantly obvious that the submitter has continued to fake BCTMs to add false locations to the Wayfarer database. 

    I wish to explain why the location of the disputed Wayspot makes no sense, highlighting why they are fake. I will not theorise or suggest the reason why these two bollards (K and N) are the subject of these stickers. However, there are issues in terms of the location and the execution of the stickers which warrant assessment. The image shows that the sticker exists on only one side of the bollard (northbound), and this is true for both bollards K and N. However, the BCTMs at locations 2 and 3 on the map are bidirectional and can be seen from both sides. There is no correct direction to walk the trail – the Council intends for people to access the trail at any point and walk it in either direction. As such, the icon for the trail can be seen if a pedestrian walks both northbound and southbound along Woodside Road. If the Council were to add new trail markers along this route, they would also be bidirectional by design to fulfil this intention. The disputed Wayspot (and the other sticker used to justify said Wayspot) flagrantly disregard this intention. The submitter's assertion that these stickers are real markers installed by the Council, therefore, would suggest that the Council intends for people travelling southbound along Woodside Road to miss these markers.

    The submitter further suggests that these stickers exist to make traversing the trail easier; in other words, without these markers, it would be difficult to follow the trail along Woodside Road. There is no reason for the addition of more trail markers along this road. Woodside Road has no difficult junctions or forks. If a pedestrian continues 'straight' along the road (ignoring the gentle curve to the left) and does not stray directly off Woodside Road, they will make it to the BCTM at Austrey Avenue. Further, the design of the housing area to the north of Woodside Road is a crescent, meaning that if a pedestrian on the trail makes an incorrect turn onto Audley Drive (unprovoked, given that no signage suggests they do so), they will be able to head onto Baslow Drive and Austrey Avenue, returning to Woodside Road. At this junction, they will find the BCTM at Austrey Avenue, ensuring that they know which way to go. Again, this means that any additional markers are unnecessary, and the Council would not want to invest funds into fruitless endeavours such as this.

    Finally, there are other sections of the Broxtowe Country Trail which are completely devoid of markers for long distances. The trail continues south along Woodside Road, over the roundabout to University Boulevard, and turns right to go south along Queens Road East (the A6005). It follows the road south until the next junction, where it veers south onto Beacon Road. It continues along this road, where it then becomes Humber Road South and crosses the railway line over the bridge. At the roundabout, it turns right onto Lilac Grove. It then travels along Lilac Grove and turns left onto Beech Avenue. There is a trail marker at the junction of Queens Road East and Tattershall Drive (52.930672, -1.202535), which is the last trail marker before the bridge over the railway line. There isn't another trail marker until the junction of Lilac Grove and Beech Avenue (52.921605, -1.203527). This is a 0.9 mile stretch of trail devoid of BCTMs. Meanwhile, the submitter suggests that the distance between the existing trail markers at Lenton Abbey Park and Austrey Avenue, which spans roughly 1800 feet, is long enough to warrant two stickers. These stickers are 240 feet apart, and the disputed Wayspot is less than 500 feet away from the BCTM at Lenton Abbey Park. This is further evidence that the Wayspot is not a legitimate Council trail marker.

    3. Professional Quality of Marker

    The submitter contends that the Wayspot qualifies as a 'professional quality vinyl sticker'. Here, I would like to draw attention to the four types of BCTM used by the Council and then demonstrate how this assertion is false.

    The first is a 'Directional' Marker, which is made of metal and bolted to a metal pole or lamppost using brackets. These function in pairs and identify the direction of the trail often found at turning points of the trail or where there is a fork in the road. An example of this is the BCTM at Derby Road (Number one on the bollards map, discussed above).

    The second is a 'Plate' Marker, which is also made of metal and bolted to a pole or lamppost in much the same way as a Directional Marker. These differ, however, in their shape and design – they are singular and double-sided, functioning as a reminder of the trail (to assure the user that they are still on the trail). An example of this is the BCTM at Austrey Avenue, discussed above.

    The third is a 'Hard Disc' Marker, which is made of plastic and hammered into a wooden post using three metal nails. These are often found in more rural parts of the trail, where wooden posts are inherently more common than urban metal street lampposts. An example of this can be found along a walking path near the Village of Strelley. It is a Wayspot in the database, and the coordinates are 52.963333, -1.254889. 

    The fourth and final is a 'Sticker' Marker, which is a glossy adhesive sticker stuck onto a metal post or lamppost. These are incredibly rare along the trail, but two exist in the Beeston Rylands Village. One is on a metal pole at the junction of Beech Road and both West and East Crescent (52.919324, -1.2011060) (see: Photo_20220430_markerA1, Photo_20220430_markerA2, and Photo_20220430_markerA3). The other is a pair of stickers on a metal pole at the junction of South Road and Canalside, where the walking path along the River Trent begins (52.913306, -1.204180) (see: Photo_20220430_markerB1, Photo_20220430_markerB2, Photo_20220430_markerB3, and Photo_20220430_markerB4). 

    Photos markerA1, markerB1, and markerB2 demonstrate the quality of the sticker. The text is clear and crisp. There is a noticeable white speckling in the deep green body of the marker. The colours are vibrant. The outlines of all shapes on the marker are precise and lack any blurring. The sticker bends to stick tightly to the pole. Finally, the noticeable weathering and dirt on the outside of the markers demonstrate that the adhesive is durable and can withstand considerable abrasion. Photos markerA2 and markerB3 show the material used for the sticker. The stickers are incredibly glossy, and the sunlight reflects off them when viewed at certain angles. In Photo markerB3, in fact, you can see the reflection of my mobile phone and the metal pole adjacent to the one bearing these stickers. Finally, Photos markerA3 and markerB4 demonstrate where on the metal pole these stickers sit. The Council intends for these markers to be visible when walking and so has stuck them on at eye level.

    Now, turning to photos of the contested Wayspot (see: Photo20220430_disputedA1 and Photo20220430_disputedA2). It would be pertinent to also reference photos of the additional marker used by the submitter to justify the style and existence of a 'large scale addition of trail markers along this route' (see: Photo20220430_disputedB1, Photo20220430_disputedB2, and Photo20220430_disputedB3). 

    Photos disputedA1 and disputedB1 demonstrate the overall quality and material of the stickers. The text is fuzzy and has blurred edges. The green bodies of the stickers are markedly different, with a muted colour and barely visible speckling. The outlines of the shapes on the stickers are also blurred. The stickers sit off the bollard as if they insufficiently adhere to the bollard. The outer edges of the sticker are jagged rather than smooth as if cut out with scissors. Photo disputedA1 shows a large crack in the outer edge of the sticker. Photos disputedA2 and disputedB2 show the quality of the adhesive, as the stickers can be peeled off without any resistance. Finally, photo disputedB3 provides a close-up of the stickers. You can see the lack of gloss on the sticker, and the frayed edges further suggest the use of scissors to cut it out of a piece of paper. As an extra point, both stickers appear on bollards that are below-waist height. This does not match the height used by the Council for the two stickers in the Rylands Village (photos markerA3 and markerB4 above).

    On this point, I contend that not only does the disputed Wayspot not match the style of the official BCTMs found throughout the area, but it also does not even match the quality of sticker used by the Broxtowe Borough Council in other parts of the trail. The disputed Wayspot is clearly a homemade trail marker, crafted by the submitter and stuck onto the black cycling bollard to fake a Wayspot.

    4. No Room for Previous Method

    The submitter suggests that the Council has elected to use these black cycling bollards as sites for BCTMs due to a lack of room for the Plate Markers used elsewhere on this road. This, too, is an easily debunked falsehood.

    I want to refer you to Slide 2 of Collection_Part1, which is a map of the lampposts on Woodside Road. The lampposts with the BCTMs at Lenton Abbey Park and Austrey Avenue (discussed above) are highlighted here at number 1 and number 27, respectively. As you can see, there are 25 additional lampposts along the pavemented sides of this stretch of Woodside Road. (Note – there are more lampposts on the grassy central reservation, but these cannot be accessed safely by foot, so I have omitted them here). 

    The submitter is accurate that there are no lampposts on the short northern section of the path between Winster Close and Olton Avenue, where they contend two stickers appear (including the disputed Wayspot). However, there is a lamppost on the other side of the Winster Close junction (marked as position 8). Surely, if the Council wished to add a trail marker on this stretch of the road, they would put a Plate Marker in this location. There is also a lamppost (position 15) which is almost perfectly equidistant between the existing BCTMs, which would be a prime location for a new marker to "improve the quality of the trail and ease in following the route". The submitter's argument is faulty and barely disguises their attempt to 'legitimise' their faked sticker markers.


    The disputed Wayspot is fake and should be removed. The submitter's response to me does not do enough to demonstrate its legitimacy. The original sticker was fake and did not match any of the types of BCTM in existence. The 'replacement' referred to in the submitter's response was added too quickly to be legitimate. Further, the replacement demonstrates the same issues as the original fake sticker. The sticker is clearly homemade rather than the "professional quality" suggested by the submitter. The submitter's attempt to add another sticker near the Wayspot to bolster its legitimacy only exacerbates the problem. It has all the issues the original fake sticker has but also demonstrates that they are both homemade.

    I understand that the above response is lengthy, and for that, I apologise. However, I argue that it was necessary to go into detail to demonstrate my point. Further, any new stickers along the stretch of the Broxtowe Country Trail between Wollaton Vale and the Rylands Village, which match the style or description of the disputed Wayspot, will likely be faked as well. In providing this much detail, I hope that this not only ensures the removal of this faked Wayspot but also prevents any future manipulation of Wayfarer and future submission of fake Wayspots in this area.

  • GCOneSixtyOne-INGGCOneSixtyOne-ING Posts: 56 ✭✭

    Quite suspicious that your account was created the day after the original post in this discussion and your one and only post was a comment on this specific thread. Your writing style and lack of punctuation, specifically commas, also pretty closely matches that of @T00tsFairy-PGO . Seems pretty clear that you’re abusing the system and that @HeyItsPugs-ING is in the right.

  • T00tsFairy-PGOT00tsFairy-PGO Posts: 3 ✭✭

    I am sorry why are you tagging me? I have nothing to do with the other users in this thread and in fact never met them other than seeing some of their names in gyms every now and about. FYI I actually have no interest in this particular trail marker and just said what I know. Ah sorry it was classed as hearsay oh well I am certainly not bothering asking my **** at the Council for a written declaration on such a trivial matter am I? We all seem to agree this discussion is dragging and losing the point so I'd rather go back minding my own business and trying to beat these mega raids with my actual friends. Being local I had a bout of civil duty and thought I could do something helpful and non-controversial but actually can't believe even a videogame forum can be so toxic! Apologies for the OT and bye then.

  • T00tsFairy-PGOT00tsFairy-PGO Posts: 3 ✭✭

    PS the **** word above was just m-a-t-e meaning pal not sure why was censored lol

Sign In or Register to comment.