What is acceptable pedestrian access?
VARedHawk-PGO Posts: 5 ✭✭
Or, put another way, what sort of access is worthy of rejection? If the stop is alongside a road, I assume that sidewalks would qualify as sufficient pedestrian access. But, if the wayspot is in a place that would require crossing a street, is that not acceptable? Would it be acceptable if there is a cross walk? Does it matter how heavily travelled the roads are?
Also, to what does the pedestrian access requirement apply? Is it access to the location pin? (I’ve seen plenty of lakes and ponds marked in the middle of the body of water.) Or, could pedestrian access be acceptable if the pin is within a short distance of a reasonable walkway?
One needs to be able to walk up to the POI, stand at the location as long as you want* (minutes! hours! days!), and then interact with the POI. For things like a mural, "height" is not relevant -- you can stand at the base of the brick wall. A business with a parking lot is considered "safe" -- if you cannot get from your parking space to the business, it would soon be out of business!
We've had stunningly insistent players in these forums who try to insist upon weird things, ie.
Locations in the middle of a pond (ie. "aerator" fountains) are ineligible due to lack of pedestrian access. Locations that are periodically inaccessible due to high tides are ineligible, even if they are SOMEtimes accessible at low tides.
I don’t want to split hairs, but it often comes down to splitting hairs …
So, as I read your first bullet, your answer could be different if (a) the median is on a neighborhood street rather than a highway, and (b) there is an apparent safe way to access the POI. Agree?
On your second bullet, would the existence of pedestrian access along the side (rather than being a crosswalk) of a painted road be acceptable? (For this, let’s assume the painted road is within a few feet of a pedestrian walkway.)
My bullet points were examples of things that players incorrectly tried to insist were acceptable, not rules.
But to split hairs;
Whether the "median" is on a highway or on a residential street, neither location constitutes "safe pedestrian access". If it IS safe, you will have to visually demonstrate so in your supporting photos.
Thanks for clarifying.
If you wish to see what @0X00FF00-ING was referencing in their second bullet point, this is the thread with the painted road: https://community.wayfarer.nianticlabs.com/discussion/21818/what-am-i-missing-here/p1
This example does not have safe pedestrian access as it is in the middle of an intersection. It touches the crosswalks, but crosswalks are not intended to be an area where pedestrians can stop, they just facilitate crossing the road.
Ingress agents have actions that require them to be directly on top of a portal, which is why it's important to be able to safely walk right up to any given point of interest, and as there is no valid location to place the submission pin that would both represent the physical location of the painting whilst also being on the sidewalk, that's why this particular example is deemed unsafe.
When someone is trying to "split hairs", it is usually a good indication that the nomination fails that specific criteria, but the nominator is trying to argue on behalf of a trivial technicality that isn't relevant.
Some people have a line of thought that there must explicitly be a sidewalk, not just a dirt path or grassed area along the road. I had to argue with a bunch of people recently that this giant sign did not have pedestrian access because the concrete ramp and path stops short of the sign.
I think someone mentioned this ages ago but I quote, some people expect pedestrian access as the whole world being paved with tarmac or concrete.
There was an argument last year or the year before about a round about portal, ithink it was a memorial. Although it was in the middle of a roundabout, it had benched on it, so was clearly intended for people to go to and sit at, the person who put it up complained it didn't have pedestrian access as it required crossing the roundabout but niantic said there were benches there so it was clearly intended to have pedestrians at it.
There was another as well, another kind of memorial that was next to a busy highway, but, the area behind the memorial was all grass land, so, while it would have been a pain to get to by walking, it could be walked to safely through that grassland, and therefor had the safe pedestrian access. That one was more to show that a sidewalk isn't necessary, its nice, but not always necessary, so long as there is a safe way to get to it and stand at it, it should be ok
Sorry to jump on your thread, new to the site and could only find how to 'reply' and not make a new one.
Anywho, was hoping for a bit of advice on a location I had posted and was declined for pedestrian access. It is a historical bridge that is connected directly to a large field. Seeing how it's a bridge, that people walk across I thought it strange about the reason. I did not place the pin directly in the middle of the bridge, but at the spot where field meets bridge sidewalk, folks could sit there for hours on the bridge, or the field if they desired,
In your opinions, should I try to post it again? Its a great spot, perhaps I am showcasing it wrong in the photo?
Any advice would be great, even if it's to say it's a waste of time and a bad spot.
I've had several like that, some I gave up on. It took forever to get approval for stops along my local walking trail for exactly this reason. No pavement, just grassland and dirt.
This is what Niantic say about "No predestrian access" on the review page.
"Use for nominations that do not have a safe, pedestrian pathway leading to the object. Note that it is not sufficient to be able to access the nomination from a nearby sidewalk. There must be a pedestrian walkway or a trail leading all the way to the object. Remote nominations, such as those on mountain tops or on small islands, are acceptable if they can safely be accessed on foot."
Thanks! Yeah I have read that over a few times now, and as I said, it's a bridge, with sidewalks, I placed the pin as best I could on the sidewalk part of the bridge. So people will walk through it, perhaps I showed the bridge too much, and not the surrounding areas ? Was my first spot nomination.
Show us the full nomination with photos and text if you want any thoughts on a specific nomination.
Sure, tried to copy the URL, but not sure if it would work fully, so here's a few quick screen shots of the nom
You can't zoom the pictures, but I can load those separately if that's important. The only rejection note I get though is pedestrian access
Anything that verifies the historical claims? The pedestrian access rejection reason may be do to it being a road bridge instead of a pedestrian bridge.
TheFarix has it right here. Neither of the photos really clearly shows the sidewalk. Since it is primarily a road bridge, reviewers are likely to assume it has bad pedestrian access. Also (as TheFarix mentioned), the supporting information does not do a good job of explaining why your nomination is eligible. You need to use the supporting information to back up your claims of historical value with information like links to websites where it is listed as being of historical interest. Instead you have used your supporting information mostly to talk about things that are nearby, which don't really have any bearing on whether the bridge itself should be accepted as a wayspot.
Sure, the historical info I got on it is from a site called historicalbridges.org so I'm not too worried about that.
The first try I made on this spot I used the supporting info to explain the bridge and importance of it ( it's actually the only place for pedestrians to cross the highway running under it lol). The second time is what you see in the screen shots, where I tried talking about the general area around it.
Perhaps I will try to take a picture tomorrow to show more of the sidewalk? I mean, can it be rejected for lack of pedestrian access but is actually another reason?
This is not my pic, but I was going to take one similar to it to use to show the sidewalk, but my issue with it is it doesn't show the actual bridge.
I knew the area right away. Drive by it when I'm that way in summers.
It can be rejected for being a road traffic bridge. Odds are it will be rejected again even with pedestrian access shown because it's primarily for road traffic and not a footbridge. It has a good look so the historical part might sway people who pay attention past the photo and actually read supporting information.
That said there should be loads of POI around the area to nominate. Park signs, playground sets, covered rest areas. Niagara is great for those.
Once you are reviewing more you see what does well and not.
I live in the Japanese countryside. No sidewalks. Crazy thing is that even Japanese cities have no sidewalks on side streets... even downtown... BUT I've been dinged with lack of pedestrian access for things you actually need to walk up to to use. There sole purpose is to be used by people walking up to them and STILL I get lack of pedestrian access. Many reviewers aren't paying enough attention in their race to get upgrades.
I'd guess the key rejection reason for your submission was "Does not meet criteria", which would be correct for something like a generic "road bridge" like this.
Thanks for the replies,
I have read and re-read the criterias a few times now, and there is nothing on bridges at all. It does meet the criteria, and doesn't meet any of the rejection criteria. If a reviewer can assume that a parking lot is safe ( which is farthest from the truth)how is a bridge with sidewalks unsafe. It's actually a great spot for taking sunset pictures, people already stand on the bridge. Call it whatever sort of bridge y'all want, as a local I know without it where it is, there are large detours to cross the highway the bridge goes over.
Just hard to try and improve my submission when it's being rejected for being a bridge.... Which isn't a rejection condition ... I mean the rainbow bridge between Canada and USA is a gym, and you can't reach the gym without being on the bridge... Is rainbow bridge a pedestrian bridge? Far from it lol
Assuming you mean this bridge: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow_Bridge_(Niagara_Falls)
The article clearly states that pedestrians are permitted on the bridge, meaning it meets the pedestrian access requirement. It is also an international landmark that's important enough to have its own Wikipedia page, which is likely why it was deemed acceptable and added to the database.
Sorry, perhaps my statement was typed badly. I know people can go on it, I was just pointing out that it is a waypoint, that is considered pedestrian access while the one I posted is not, both have sidewalks. And roads... If there is no guideline for reviewers about bridges, where do they pick and choose the differences? People walk on both bridges safely, yet the one I posted says no pedestrian access leading up to it.
And fyi, Rainbow bridge is not easy to just walk to and over
Well anywho, thanks for the replies. I may just try once more and hope for the best. Hopefully there can be an update to the criteria regarding bridges and access. Thanks again
Debating the specific eligibility of one nomination in this forum will not help it get approved. A bridge that accommodates traffic - unless it offers some other value such as visual uniqueness or historical relevance - will usually get rejected, whether it has a pedestrian portion or not. Honestly, getting a nomination approved only has so much to do with the eligibility criteria and more to do with framing the nomination in a way that appeals to reviewers.
For this nomination, supporting the historic value will serve you better, as would a simpler description: “Built in 1941, the Victoria Avenue Bridge is the only stone faced, rigid frame overpass in Ontario.” Then in the supporting text provide the URL for the historical bridges web site to prove your claim.
Get a new image as well, that shows more clearly that it is a bridge: either from the underpass perspective, or the pedestrian walk on the overpass.
Thanks, will take all this into mind. Tho I'll say I never meant to start any debate - simply was curious what acceptable pedestrian pathway meant ( still somewhat iffy) not sure if that is just an easy way to reject a nom, to say a pathway hundreds of pedestrians use daily is not an acceptable pathway, makes little sense. There are several stops along this street which must use the exact same sidewalk for their pedestrian access. If it was rejected for say, being a bridge or not being historical enough, or using terrible descriptions or blurry pics, I'd be fine with that, but it's not. A bridge with a plaque used as it's pic still uses a bridge sidewalk to access the plaque.
Also, I have read in the guidelines not to post URLs so I won't put that in the info
URLs don’t go in the description but are acceptable in the supporting info.
Add the link to the article saying it's historical in to the support section. Unfortunately to many reviewers are still to lazy or just dont know they can click on the title when reviewing and it will load the article or google the results for them. It's all just a speed game to them to see how many they can get to there next upgrade.
It's much easier to reject than actually spend time reviewing
If a reviewer needs to do google search on a nomination, then the nominator failed or was too lazy to do their job in the nomination.
Whenever I randomly get nominations from other countries where I don't know the cultural context I basically have to do a google search. I don't blame the nominator for that. It's pretty common.