Live in Wayfarer 3.1 is a new set of acceptance criteria! Please browse the information in this category with caution as it is in reference to the previous review guidelines. To learn more about the new criteria, see here: https://niantic.helpshift.com/a/wayfarer/
Footbridges
mantolwen-ING
Posts: 27 ✭✭✭
Since the October Ingress AMA, there has been a massive influx of bridges of all kinds into the Wayfarer system. There seems to be a general opinion of either "if it's a pedestrian footbridge then it's valid", or "only for named trails".
What about wooden walking trail bridges throughout a park or nature preserve on the trail/path? If they are accessible by foot and expected to be used as part of the trail, they would meet the criteria.
Please can we get a clarification of what "trail" means? Is this only for named trails, or any path that has a bridge on it? A lot of the bridges I am seeing are footbridges that connect one area to another, or a small bridge over a stream, but not connected to any sort of trail.
Answers
Glad someone asked this, feel like every bridge I see on Wayfarer claims to be part of some trail when in reality it's just a generic footbridge on a path.
@mantolwen-ING I think Niantic mean that it should be part of a named trail, however the wording could do with some clarification as some players could take it to mean any old footpath, route, or trail that happens to go over a footbridge.
I think since that clarification was added, I've only seen ONE footbridge that was part of a named trail, the rest have usually been just a footbridge that's used to connect one area to another area.
People have massively abused the 'footbridge' clarification, where the majority of submissions aren't even footbridges, let alone apart of a trail. There are so many low quality nominations that come through the system that are labelled as bridges/footbridges, it really needs to be stopped. Below are some poor quality examples.
It would be ideal if Niantic rescinded their clarification about bridges and simply made them ineligible.
The only times a bridge should be eligible is if it has actual historic/cultural significance. Bridges like London Tower Bridge, Golden Gate Bridge, Sydney Harbour Bridge, etc. They all have history, they all have a story to tell and are all tourist points of interest. The bridge we see in Wayfarer are a joke and are absolutely disgraceful. It severely degrades the quality of the Niantic Real World Platform, if anybody were serious in investing into the platform and had any questions on the quality of the points of interest, they would immediately turn back.
Hopefully Niantic see this and take some action to bring back quality into submissions.
^Literally just a dirt patch
^These are footpaths with drainage pipes below them, they are not footbridges.
^This is a footpath
^Footpath
^Footpath
^Footpath
^Staircase
^Footpath
I have hundreds of other examples.
The worst part about it, you would be surprised how many of these actually pass.
here is one I submitted. Children play here catching insects and playing with water. So I would say it qualifies. Trail not named.
This is precisely what I'm looking for the answer to. In my opinion a bridge like this has no significance. It's just a way of getting from A to B. Children playing here doesn't really make any difference as it's not a designated playground.
I wonder why people think only bridges that are part of a walking trail are eligible. The oct 2019 question specifically asks about walking trail bridges. But according to the feb 2018 answer, any bridge qualifies if it's special enough.
October 2019 refers specifically to footbridges on walking trails or in parks though, not traffic bridges or bridges that are ruins but still have safe pedestrian access.
But the quote further down say footbridges on a trail through a park is OK. And this one is one of these. Not a named trail though.
You would give a high score to a generic overpass ? That is madness
I would really appreciate an answer from Niantic on this as the community is too divided.
Cringing at these examples but have seen similar submitted and even going live in the UK. I've only seen a handful where I could confirm they were part of a trail, and usually the submitter provided a link to a map of the trail which mentioned the bridge, or it had a trail marker disc actually on it.
While footbridges are among the less interesting wayspots out there, I find their addition to be really good. They are, by definition, accessible on foot, tend to help people navigate and get around, etc. I do admit that when I got bored of writing normal descriptions for them, I started including random quotes about bridges I found online.
How on earth did that get accepted 😬
Why wouldn't this get accepted with current guidance?
I don't find pedestrian footbridges that interesting, but AMA guidance says "If they are accessible by foot and expected to be used as part of the trail, they would meet criteria"
I think what Niantic meant by part of the trail was that it would be part of a named trail.
I could be wrong and happy for Niantic to clarify.
I think the big confusion is around the meaning of "trail" vs "path" vs "footpath". I think this is definitely a cultural thing. Here in the American West, trails often don't have names, and you're lucky if they even have numbers. That doesn't mean they aren't designed to be used by humans, and they aren't significant.
I don't see where people are getting "only named trail" from the October 2019 AMA answer. The question asks about "wooden walking trail bridges throughout a park or nature preserve on the trail/path", and the response talks about "accessible by foot and expected to be used as part of the trail". The "trail" in the answer is directly calling back to the "trail/path" in the question. It doesn't mean "only bridges on named trails are acceptable". You need to take the answer in the context of the question being asked. Parks and nature preserves definitely have pedestrian trails around. I don't care if you call them "trail" or "footpath" or "path" -- those, to me, are all interchangeable words. Any improved, designed, human-accessible route through a park or nature preserve would be considered a "trail" to me, in my common day language. It doesn't matter if that's paved with dirt, gravel, cement, asphalt, stones, pavers, bricks, etc. It doesn't need to have a trail sign and a name to be a "trail".
A substantial bridge (actually a bridge, and not a path over a culvert -- as long as there was some space below the deck of the bridge that wasn't a pipe, it'd be a bridge) along a designated path through a park would absolutely be valid and acceptable per the October 2019 AMA answer. I think people are getting caught up with the "expected to be used as part of the trail" part of the answer. To me, this just means that you have some sort of pedestrian access on either side of the bridge that continues as a part of the "trail", "path", "footpath", etc. So, if you have a dirt, gravel, asphalt, paved, cement, or brick path leading up to the bridge, the bridge, then another distinct maintained path on the other side, and the bridge is used as a part of people traversing that path, then the bridge would be acceptable. It would be acceptable regardless of whether the path had a trail name and trail signage.
The February 2018 question and answer in the AMA say that as long as there's some significance and it has safe pedestrian access, it would be eligible (or at least not outright rejected). The way I read the October 2019 answer is it's helping to provide more context around the "significance" qualifier. A bridge that's a part of a path or trail in a park or a nature preserve gets some significance from its location in the park or nature preserve. This doesn't mean that all pedestrian bridges everywhere in all shapes and forms are acceptable. To use the example of an overpass bridge at a park and ride, I would agree that it's not immediately eligible. If all the bridge does is provide access from one side of the highway to the other, and it's all internal to the park and ride spanning both sides of the highway, I'd say that wouldn't be eligible. But if the park and ride were on a multi-use trail, and there were paved trails entering and exiting the park and ride on both sides, and the trail also made use of that overpass bridge, I'd say that bridge would become eligible. If the primary purpose of the bridge is to serve the internal use of the park and ride, it wouldn't be eligible. If the bridge could be used by somebody who didn't make use of the park and ride, and who was simply using the trail, and the park and ride use of the bridge was incidental, I'd totally think it'd be eligible.
I think the hold up on "named trail" comes from confusing guidance around trail markers. Trail markers are simple and easy to produce and put up. They help people navigate, but they're not substantial. Saying a "named trail" for trail markers helps to reduce the potentially huge number of candidates. For example, some trails around me (in a state park, mind you) are named after different animals that are visible. All along the trails, there are metal posts with a sticker of that animal's footprint, every couple of hundred feet. They are trail markers, but they are mass produced and there are a whole heck of a lot of them. Whenever two or more of those named trails come together or split apart, there is a trail marker stating the name of the multiple trails, with arrows pointing in the direction that each trail goes or comes from. These trail markers, with the names and arrows, are much more unique, and they're substantial. These would be eligible candidates, but the mass produced, non-unique footprint markers, even though they are trail markers, wouldn't be.
An actual bridge is more significant than a trail marker. It takes more time, effort, energy, and planning to put into place than it does to nail up a named trail marker to a tree. The bridges are obviously made and installed by humans, and they are obviously meant to be used as a part of a path. I don't think that we should be holding them to the standard of "named trails only" that doesn't seem to come from anywhere. No, not everything that's submitted as a bridge is actually a bridge. No, I don't think all bridges should be accepted regardless of any other criteria. But please use your judgment -- if there's a path leading up to and away from a bridge, and especially if it's in a park or nature preserve, you shouldn't require that the path that traverses that bridge is a "named trail" for the bridge to be eligible at all.
Honestly, though, I think I'd be open to some sort of compromise. If we mandated that the pedestrian bridge had a path on both sides, crossed an obstacle, and had sides or railings or a fence along the length of it, I think we could cut out a large number of the questionable candidates while still allowing "real bridges" to remain eligible.
I had this to review the other day. The nomination described it as a footbridge, but it's just a trail underpass. I understand it meets similar criteria as a footbridge, but it's not the same. It was part of a named trail.
Hopefully trail underpasses can be addressed.
For me I think the misinterpretation comes around "wooden walking trail bridge". A "wooden walking trail bridge" is NOT a bridge. If you google "wooden walking trail" you get those long paths that stretch out just above a surface (or even up in the trees), that go the whole length of the path. Not a footbridge, or an overpass bridge, or any of that sort of thing. So in my opinion people have completely misunderstood the question and answer.
I think you are maybe reading it as "wooden walking trail" + "bridge". I wouldn't read "wooden" that way. If that was the meaning, it would have been said "forest walking trail bridge" or "woods walking trail bridge" or "walking trail bridge in the woods". "Wooden" is an adjective modifying the noun, "walking trail bridge". It's mentioned that it's in a park or nature preserve. There are plenty of walking trail bridges made out of wood in those sorts of locations, especially in America. Since Niantic is a US-based company, I would read the American interpretation in the answer, which is "a walking trail bridge made of wood, located in a park or nature preserve". Your interpretation definitely is not a common usage in the US, and I think it's far more likely to be read in the case of "a bridge made of wood, located along a walking trail", especially considering that those are definitely real and common things.
Materials differences do not matter on approved things. Playgrounds are playgrounds all made of various different materials.
This one is part of a long distance path and I think meets the brief, although the trail name disc is on the other end - this end only has the generic direction marker, so if ever I submitted it I'd have to photograph the other end. The local rights of way team are a little inconsistent with signage:
Duplicate
No, I think that a "wooden walking trail bridge" is literally a bridge, on a trail, made out of wood. Literally, that's it.
Something like this:
Or this:
Or this:
Each of these is definitely a bridge, with sides, that crosses some sort of obstacle. Each is definitely on a trail or path. This is exactly what I have in mind.
And? I don't see the point being made here. I was just referring to the question asked. The question said "wooden walking trail bridge". The answer made no mention of material, as long as it was along a trail (which is another point of contention I tried to clarify above). Honestly, any material a bridge was made out of, as long as it was a bridge and on a path or trail, and actually a "bridge", would be fine for me. A "wooden walking trail bridge" is not the same thing as a "boardwalk". I don't care about the "wooden" bit at all, except to say that it definitely is referring to a "bridge" and not literally anything else. It just happens that most of such bridges are actually made out of wood, at least where I live. And, also, that "wooden" doesn't explicitly and exclusively mean "in the woods". But, that's a different tangent, since the "wooden" qualifier was only in the question asked and not in the answer given.
I'd totally say that qualifies even without the trail marker or signage. I'd have no problem approving that as-is. Most bridges like that near me wouldn't ever have any marking or signage.
I would need some proof these were on a trail. A link to a map that mentions them perhaps. Otherwise they're just a generic footbridge to me.
They didn't mention anything about ratings. They said they would need proof it's part of a trail, such as a map. 🤦♂️