Mountain peaks
Archis0815-PGO
Posts: 8 ✭✭
As mountain peaks are in general allowed ist my question here how pestestrian access does restrict this. There 'safe to reach' is mentioned and for me a Peak which is only reachable via a black route (blue, red,black) are the difficulties in the Alps, is not safe in general.
Or is it enough enough If There ist a official Route AS for experienced hiker the way is 'safe'?
The requests is about the Peak Cross of
Scheichenspitze Gipfelkreuz 2.667m
Gipfelkreuz
In Schladming/Austria
Comments
Generally speaking, mountain summits would still be safe.
It's funny that a mountain top is declared as valid, but walking on grass besides a rural road is highly dangerous. But hey, this is Niantic. Their games, their rules.
Keep in mind that a mountaintop itself would likely be rejected. A sign announcing the peak or the elevation, however, would probably be perfectly acceptable.
At least in the German Translation, peaks (Berggipfel) are explicitely mentioned as acceptable in the pestestrian access rejection.
Context matters. Many mountains have passes that may have been used for
centuriesmillennia. They might not be easy hikes or may take significant preparation and training, but they are still navigable and intended for foot access. Something on the side of a road may or may not be intended for pedestrian access and no blanket "no" exists. Any location should be reviewed with an understanding of if the area is intended to be walked/accessed and in an area likely to be interrupted by vehicles.Or a cairn
Still my question is: what is your Interpretation of safely accessed:
So you think an official way independent in the difficulty ist enough to Accept a requests?
AS I also Like to hike, I would tend to reject peaks which can only be accessed on a difficult way. What is your opinion in that?
If any sort of marker or guided path exists, I would assume the area is intended to be accessed by hikers/pedestrians and be likely to accept.
All these ones are trying to reach the new gym at the top of K2 😂
https://www.itv.com/news/2022-08-02/congestion-at-k2-summit-as-climbers-queue-to-reach-the-peak
I was wrestling with this myself after you asked, and I like @Gendgi-PGO's answer. Reached by a path or a trail that can be taken by foot (pedestrians) without any special climbing gear or skill required. It may be too strenuous for some people, but it's not likely tempting anyone to make poor decisions with respect to their climbing abilities.
The Idea with no clumbing gear / Tool is great, If surefootedness (and being free from giddiness) is not counted as skill then this is a good fit.
Based on threads I’ve seen in these forums, those tend to do poorly with reviewers. A pile of rocks just doesn’t speak eligibility to Wayfarers very clearly.
Really? Might depend on geographic location. I've never even reviewed one in the US, but I see acceptances shared frequently by a few in Norway.
If you can walk safely without special equipement it should be OK. I am only addressing access here
re the cairns question. Some cairns are absolutely viable as a nomination. Just that what I think is a cairn may not be yours. Because cairns can be truely massive. truely old. They are found globally. From South American to Africa to Norway to Asia. Gendgi-PGO do some research for the Americas. From Hawaii to Canada to the Andes.
We associate them with Europe due to the Celtic name. But they are global. Mainly as trail markers but in some areas there are very strong cultural connections are associated as to why a cairn exists. I enjoy the Scottish one that in the old days - before battle the participants all put a stone in a pile. Those that survived took their rock away and what was left was used to honour the dead.
I think traditionally in some areas a cairn on top of a hill/mountain can only be a cairn if built from stones carried from the bottom of the hill.
So by definition anyone can make a cairn. Literally all it means is a pile of rocks that has a purpose. I have seen a nomination for a cairn as a placemarker that was like 8 rocks on top of each other as a tower. I rejected. Looked just like the ones my kids make at beach. at best temporary at worst a blatent attempt to abuse the system.
FYI I made a cairn in the garden. I collect all the bigger rocks and stones and put in one place at the end of the garden. I wanted to stop the stones from destroying the mower and to have a better veggie patch that did not destroy my hands! I now have a cairn. We now use it as a boundary marker with the neighbours. It therefor meets the criteria of a cairn.
Yeah. to pass a cairn. Size. age and evidence or some combination is required. cause they can be SOOO fluffy.
To expand more on what you said...Agree that cairns could be eligible, but we as reviewers must be *absolutely certain* of their historical importance and longevity. Tourists love to make cairns...to "leave their mark" in a "natural" way, because they're "Instagrammable," or even just out of boredom. However, not only are these cairns inherently temporary, but they are so detrimental to the environment, natural history, and navigability of the area. If we collectively start accepting cairns carelessly, it will give people another reason to selfishly stack temporary cairns and destroy the environment. That being said, I think I could only accept a cairn if it had an official sign. Maybe if an official trail map had it marked and the trail was on Google maps so that I could confirm the exact location, that would be acceptable too. But I would also be afraid that the existence of historical cairns in the games would encourage people to stack their own.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/stacking-rocks-wilderness-no-good-180955880/
IMHO are Mountaintops or other exposed places, not acceptable in general. Because, i.ex. Folk with **** are out in this case. I hope other wayfares consider this problem even.
A wayspot doesn't have to be accessible for everyone. ♿ access is very much welcomed but not required in the criteria.
As an analogy: a person without money, visas, or membership cannot pass through somewhere which requires one, in the OP's case hiking skills and experience to safely thread through the trail.
Safe pedestrian access, "publicly accessible", and trail markers have been a topic of the Nov 2020 Criteria Clarifications AMA:
Note: emoji used to circumvent the word banned given the context
I think considering that children play this game is important when addressing this issue. Having children cross roads in rural areas to explore a POI can be very dangerous. Don't get me wrong. Reaching a mountain peak can be considered "dangerous" as well. But generally speaking no matter what color coding given to a trail leading up to a mountain peak, I'm convinced it's still the safest possible way to get up there.
At least in Austria, the majority of mountain peaks have a any Kind of Cross. So the Cross in the Peak itself is Not the topic, i was unsure about 'safe access'.
I want to avoid that some rescue teams needs to help sombody again just because of reaching e.g. the pokestop. This is a big topic here in Austria and I really want to avoid that.
in Norway too, tons of Mountain peaks nomination and waymarkers as well