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/

Do You Believe It Was Fair To Reject This Trail Marker On Pedestrian Access Grounds?

At least one person marked it as not meeting the criteria for a good nomination but I believe we are all in agreement here that trail markers make good Wayspots. The main critique is that it does not have safe pedestrian access. Not sure why they would put trail markers in places that do not have safe pedestrian access...

Here it is on Google Street View (black pole with green metal signs):

https://www.google.com/maps/@51.2233118,0.5237465,3a,83.2y,136.29h,88.84t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1ssFaLC0rBlhbXW3Kfcla2Rw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Best Answers

  • Faversham71-INGFaversham71-ING Posts: 306 ✭✭✭✭
    Accepted Answer

    I can't read the sign on streetview, but I assume it's the same as some of the Saxon Shore Way signs with the trail name above 'Footpath'.

    I presume this was rejected because it's on a shared use lane (primarily a footpath, but used by vehicles for local access to a farm house or similar).

Answers

  • 0X00FF00-ING0X00FF00-ING Posts: 672 ✭✭✭✭✭

    There may be some argument that it's adjacent to PRP, but a literal Foot Path is already by definition "safe pedestrian access". I can't get my web browser to show me the local overhead view zoomed in enough, but that still seems like an unlikely rejection reason here.

    You will still have troubles convincing many reviewers that a sign saying "Footpath" is actually a "named" trail, but that's another issue altogether.

  • AScarletSabre-PGOAScarletSabre-PGO Posts: 720 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I believe some people are simply looking for any excuses they can to reject named trails because they don't believe trail markers should be Wayspots. This named trail literally has its own entry on Wikipedia (which I linked to):


  • 0X00FF00-ING0X00FF00-ING Posts: 672 ✭✭✭✭✭

    But granted, we're supposed to only submit and accept trail markers that show the name of the trail. All I see in the picture is "Footpath", nothing about this "Greensand Way".

  • AScarletSabre-PGOAScarletSabre-PGO Posts: 720 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited August 2020

    That is what I submitted: the sign. The sign has the name of the trail on it. Image of my nomination incoming.

  • Faversham71-INGFaversham71-ING Posts: 306 ✭✭✭✭
    Accepted Answer

    I can't read the sign on streetview, but I assume it's the same as some of the Saxon Shore Way signs with the trail name above 'Footpath'.

    I presume this was rejected because it's on a shared use lane (primarily a footpath, but used by vehicles for local access to a farm house or similar).

  • AScarletSabre-PGOAScarletSabre-PGO Posts: 720 ✭✭✭✭✭

    With supplemental below.


  • WandHerring-PGOWandHerring-PGO Posts: 133 ✭✭✭✭

    some people may have confused it for a street sign and rejected it on "no mass produced items" criteria.

  • AScarletSabre-PGOAScarletSabre-PGO Posts: 720 ✭✭✭✭✭

    That would be silly of them and expose them as bad reviewers. People need to read the additional information people provide. I provided three links as supporting evidence.

  • FrealafGB-PGOFrealafGB-PGO Posts: 354 ✭✭✭✭

    I think people forget that trail signs can be accessed by walking down the actual trail.... And trails do cross roads, but that doesn't make the sign ineligible.

  • AScarletSabre-PGOAScarletSabre-PGO Posts: 720 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Update on this: the trail marker at the entrance to the farm field (on the very same lane with the trail marker sign from the photographs) got accepted. That one does not have Google Street View. That trail marker is maybe 50m along the same road so I am bemused. Will re-submit the rejected one.

  • AScarletSabre-PGOAScarletSabre-PGO Posts: 720 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I have re-submitted the trail marker. This is the marker that got accepted (screenshot from the Ingress Intel Map):

    What is being re-submitted:


  • PoMaQue-PGOPoMaQue-PGO Posts: 223 ✭✭✭✭

    There is indeed no Safe Pedestrian Access here, there is not enough room on the sides of the road for people to walk on and since the Google Street Car went through there, cars do use it.

    We also have tons of walking trails that go over roads, without separate pedestrian access, it's weird, but not Niantic's concern.

    They need a sidewalk or wide green lane, where pedestrian can walk at all times safely, so that's what we approve.

  • FuzzySun-INGFuzzySun-ING Posts: 47 ✭✭✭

    The lane is a footpath.

  • AScarletSabre-PGOAScarletSabre-PGO Posts: 720 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited August 2020

    The trail marker is not techically on the lane. It's on the driveway leading up to the farmer's field. This would only be used a few times per day, if that, as there are only a couple of residential properties along this section of the trail (from the junction with the lane to the field).


    The fact there is a marked public footpath here would imply there is safe pedestrian access. Why would they put signs for a public footpath in a place which isn't safe for pedestrians to access? The local council obviously think it's safe, otherwise they would have upgraded the infrastructure.

  • FrealafGB-PGOFrealafGB-PGO Posts: 354 ✭✭✭✭

    I think people tend to forget that you can access the trail marker by literally walking along the trail... Which means of course it has safe access.

    Also in the UK countryside, there are often walkers on small roads and drivers are aware of this. Its normal to see walkers on roads like this, so I don't rate these as no safe access. If there was genuinely no safe access, then walkers wouldn't use the trail and it would be moved. I think we need to use a little common sense here... It's a walking trail, designed to be walked along.

  • FTAno1-PGOFTAno1-PGO Posts: 41 ✭✭

    footpath (also pedestrian way, walking trailnature trail) is a type of thoroughfare that is intended for use only by pedestrians and not other forms of traffic such as motorized vehicles, cycles, and horses


    this is from the dictionary and counters all arguments about the safety aspect.


    While i agree in principal for the nomination i would ALWAYS mark it a rejection due to this obvious fact.

    there is no FOOTPATH. only a grass verge and the lane is TARMAC based in part ergo VEHICULAR access even if in a state it is clearly defined as suitable for ROAD vehicles which counters the argument it is a Footpath.

    I would pesronally like to see this approved but under the guidleines given cannot agree its acceptable.


    purely because its a ROAD /LANE thats been built for Motor propelled vehicles ergo a ROAD and without pathways on at least one side it must be deemed unsafe for pedestrians. Purely for the basis of nominations.

    like the below picture from a rejected nomination.

    Its easy to assume all nominations that have a sign or trail marker are going to get accepted but sadly sometimes the SAFETY aspect rules it out.


    another rejected nomination despite being in a dedicated ( slow lane ) safe for horses cycles and pedestrians it still fell foul of safetly rules.

    Good luck with the re submission but don`t be surprised if its rejected again .

  • PoMaQue-PGOPoMaQue-PGO Posts: 223 ✭✭✭✭

    We also have walking trails on the road in my area, without any separate lane for pedestrians. This means you need to stand on the edge of the road whenever a car drives by - which isn't safe.

    When reviewing this, it doesn't matter what local council thought when they had a walking trail set up on the road, it matters how Niantic wants us to review:

    Checking further, they did say in AMA of January 2019 (https://ingressama.com/search?q=safe+passage) that roads deemed for duplicate use (vehicle + pedestrian) could be deemed safe by local government, so they default to local reviewers.

    This means that it will depend on the Reviewer's personal views in terms of safety. As seen in this topic, some are pro, some are con.

    Personally, I only accept things with separate walking area for pedestrians (try walking with smaller kids on roads and feel your heart race every time a cr comes by).

    But please keep in mind that saying "It's on someone's driveway" raises the PRP flag for a different rejection.

  • HaramDingo-INGHaramDingo-ING Posts: 863 ✭✭✭✭✭

    If the sole argument for "pedestrian access" is having a sidewalk, then for the majority of national parks or rural country towns in Australia, none of these signs will get through. Because most of them look like this:

    • No sidewalk or concrete footpath, just a place to park your 4WD on the dirt road, get out the car and have a gander at these signs
    • Australians have common sense where if there is someone on the road, you beep loudly so they have time to process your approach, and then you drive around them or they get out of the way
    • A dirt road seems to be asynonymous with a dirt path or trail, but most national parks and expanses have shared paths like this anyway
    • I'm pretty sure America also has thesetypes of signs in the desert too

    We really shouldn't be the pedestrian access police. Just stick to your guns and common sense. No one is going to get run over unless the driver is legally blind.

  • Faversham71-INGFaversham71-ING Posts: 306 ✭✭✭✭

    It really depends on the lane - to me this looks like an access lane for a farm or handful of rural properties and will probably see less than a dozen cars a day. Niantic have clarified that on minor rural roads a sidewalk isn't mandatory if people are expected to use it as a footpath: https://ingressama.com/search?q=safe+passage, but it will essentially come down to the subjective opinion of local reviewers. I'd probably 3* pedestrian access on this one.

  • AScarletSabre-PGOAScarletSabre-PGO Posts: 720 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I should remind people that Google Street View has not been on the driveway where the marker actually is. Only the lane it's joining onto. The trail marker further along the driveway has been accepted, as shown above.

    @Faversham71-ING thank will add that to the supplemental information. I shall be "sticking to my guns" (in purely mataphorical sense, of course) as @HaramDingo-ING says I should. Didn't know Dingos could be Haram (none in Hejaz in the 6th Centuary) but there you go.

Sign In or Register to comment.