Footpath Rejection - Please Clarify
NexusJam-PGO
Posts: 13 ✭✭
What's the latest on Public Footpath signs in rural areas? I thought these may be acceptable based on @NianticGiffard comments recently regarding trail markers. I have had two other submissions - a public footpath leading to a Lake District fell summit and an arrow on an unnamed footpath recently accepted.
This got rejected the other day, and is a directional marker for an unnamed footpath/trail going through local woodland known as Rather Heath.
Comments
I don't know anyone who would accept this.
A footpath sign basically says "this is for public use, like any road or street, but only for walkers - no vehicles or horses".
Out of curiosity, what's the green thing that's screwed to the front of the post? Due to you sharing the image as a screenshot of your nomination, I can't zoom in on it. It looks like it has a symbol on it and I was wondering if it might be an unusually shaped trail marker.
I reviewed this one. I remember it as I spent quite a bit of time trying to weigh it up looking for information and I can’t remember if I gave it a 1* or 2* in the end of the day.
I think I remember it being difficult to confirm exact location on satellite view.
I tend to look at trail signs fairly generously, but the info provided did little to enhance it as a trail. At best it appeared to be a walking short cut between two country lanes. Because it is weathered and impossible to read I couldn’t tell what the left hand part of the sign says.
You would need to make a stronger case as to why this is a trail - a fuller description and supplementary info as to why this should be considered a trail. Is it part of a longer route? What is interesting/different about this walk in the woods.
I suspect I spent longer checking it out than it took to put the submission together.
You may have success if you appeal and make the case.
@HankWolfman-PGO
When I reviewed it, I had a careful look at that but it looked like it might have been an old broken disc, you certainly couldn’t see much on the original. It was one of the reasons I took time to see if I could find any specific trail.
I think this is a broken Lake District National Park logo. I'm unsure if there used to also be a small arrow here as well.
Isn't that the definition of a trail - albeit an unnamed one? A path through the woods... A trail through the woods, to the lake... if not, what's the distinction between a footpath, path and trail? Also didn't @NianticGiffard recently clarify that unnamed trail markers are now acceptable in open or green areas? I see even simple arrows with paths leading across fields are now being accepted.
Thanks for taking the time to look through this. For starters I definitely should have clarified it more. This footpath marker is on an intersection. The path crosses Ashes Lane. To the north it carries on through the woods for a short section towards the A591. To the south (the interesting part), the path goes through Rather Heath wood, to the edge of Rather Heath tarn and eventually joins Rather Heath Lane (which is written on the sign but hard to read). I walked from this sign toward the tarn and found an interesting trail which was off the beaten path and a genuinely interesting place to explore - hence the nomination. Admittedly, the sign has seen better days.
Regarding the longer route, I did some additional research and this footpath is part a route published by the Camping and Caravanning Club known as the Windermere Club Site Ratherheath Tarn Walk. The focus of this walk is Rather Heath tarn, and this is the only footpath that takes you there. I should have mentioned that in the original submission but I'm still not certain it would have been accepted as Public Footpath signs seem fairly univerally disliked.
https://www.outdooractive.com/en/route/hiking-route/united-kingdom/windermere-club-site-ratherheath-tarn-walk/57032712/
I think @NianticGiffard made 5 points from excellent to good to bad?
Unnamed marker, on a trail, not on the street I think was acceptable but that doesn't make it a 5* you might only get 2* and 3* but more likely 1* until the trail marker "meta" shifts in your favour?
@NexusJam-PGO
I think that extra info helps especially if there is the info about the CCC trail mentioned in text and expanded upon in the supplementary. A photosphere of the junction would also help to confirm the location. The national park logo with arrow would have helped too.
It is always going to be tricky and not score highly but it might just make it.
Yeah absolutely I didn't expect this to be a 5 star candidate but at least an acceptable one. There seems to have been a shift over the past few months/years but still some way to go before these are universally accepted - however I would suggest Niantic seem to be leaning in that direction and generally allowing these type of submissions.
It's definitely changed recently from the things I've seen appearing, although it may be a while yet.
You could probably build a little free library, nail it on top and submit that instead of the post before the Meta changes in your favour.
I'm sure you've seen the recent thread where NianticGifford said to accept them. Many UK reviewers in the thread strongly disagreed and have decided to continue rejecting them. You can provide a direct link to Gifford's comment in your supporting information (for reviewers who haven't seen it) along with the extra information you noted in this thread and see if that works better, or just appeal. Appeals can be slow and they sometimes reject objectively eligible things, so I'd personally try the updated resubmit first then appeal that.
Looks like a PROW marker, rather than a trail marker.
Generic, mass produced "Public Footpath" marker. Indicates a Public Right of Way - (PROW), but not a trail. If it were a trail, there would be a trail marker on the post. 1* rejection.
By trail marker do you mean an arrow?
I would assume that in this instance trail marker would be a symbol or name for a specific trail eg National Trust coastal path. If it has that it is likely to be accepted but not guaranteed.
Thanks for the reply. So to clarify, as far as you're aware the trail needs a). A marker and b). to be named to be acceptable, and even then its not guaranteed?
I know the consensus for years has been instant reject on anything unnamed and any type of public footpath. I don't think Public Footpath signs have ever been directly clarified by Niantic. However @NianticGiffard seemed to say a simple directional arrow on an unmarked trail is indeed acceptable?
c) A marker with no trail name on the trail <- Good (Correct)
d) A marker with no trail name on an open green space area <- Good enough (Correct)
(Directional arrow)
For your query on a sticker/paint/handmade marker, I think you're referring to this kind of marker: https://us.v-cdn.net/6032079/uploads/YIZASAJVWYGP/yellow-hiking-trail-marker-pointing-260nw-2093526883.jpg Trail routes also take the pedestrian path (PROW?) of an open space/field.
Our stance: If it is legit, these are acceptable. If it is manipulated by placing fake markers then it violates our policy which may lead to appropriate actions against the submitter."
I've also seen a lot of public footpaths and arrows accepted recently as well. So are we now in a position where the community is divided and some are instantly giving these 1* and others are marking them 3*+ ?
No - some sort of marker with the name or logo of an official trail on it. Yellow arrows saying "Public Footpath" are also generic mass produced items.
But a named trail is no longer a requirement and it was recently clarified (see above comment) that simple, generic arrows are now acceptable?
…but it’s not a trail. It’s a PROW.
That's case "d) A marker with no trail name on an open green space area <- Good enough (Correct)"
Basically, any marker that's not on pavement. No trail required from that statement. Not telling anyone if they should agree with it or not, but Giffard definitely said it doesn't matter if it's not a trail.
I'm not saying it needs to be a "named trail". I'm saying that in order to "upgrade" the nomination from "yet another mass produced generic and not interesting PROW / Public Footpath sign", we need something to prove its an official trail.
It's not about the sign and it doesn't need to be an official trail.
From the december 2021 AMA:
Note that we plan to restructure the rejection reasons next year, as some no longer apply with the criteria refresh we did a year ago. For example, a rejection simply for being generic isn’t sufficient anymore, what is important is how interesting and relevant it is as a place worthy of adventuring out to.
This marker appears to be in an interesting location to explore and exercise in.
The reason I said not guaranteed is partly because of differences in judgement and it’s one hurdle to have something eligible and another that it’s acceptable.
I fear we may be going around in circles here. If it is an "official trail" then surely it would have a name. I'm fairly certain this is not a requirement.
Just to put this in some kind of context... This would leave almost every path invalid in the Lake District when it comes to footpaths and trails going across mountains, fields, forests, around lakes etc. A wealth of places to explore in the natural landscape, and often the only markers are simple arrows and Public Footpath signs.
Thinking about it - there are PROWs that are footpaths going around entire lakes & tarns and you're saying all Public Footpath signs in these areas - whether they be plastic arrow discs or wooden PROW finger posts would be unacceptable candidates? (I'm not talking about some random alleyway in a town or a shortcut to Morrisons!)
For me, it’s not been clarified within Wayfarer. The December 2021 AMA answer is a bit wishy-washy
A reviewer shouldn’t need to go digging for a small comment from Niantic, that may be taken out of context, to make a decision on a review.
But it’s not a trail at all. It’s a sidewalk, but across private property. It’s infrastructure, not exploration.
It's a green space, which is what the statement was about. The "d" clarification was specifically about something that's not a trail.
That’s for a trail with no name, it’s not for a non-trail. Like a bridge: one that’s just infrastructure is ineligible, it has to serve the purpose of exploration to meet criteria… so a marker has to designate something more than just permission to cross.
It literally says "an open green space". It doesn't say anything about it needing to be part of a named trail or not.
Look, I totally get the PROW don't count logic, and I'm personally on that side, but Giffard was very clear that he isn't. That's the whole reason that post is so controversial and a lot of UK reviewers have decided to discount it.
Deep breath.
This is probably the most negative take I have ever heard regarding UK PROWs.
Firstly. Not all footpaths are sidewalks and not all footpaths are trails. Its definitely not a sidewalk - It's a path, through the countryside, and I would argue based on the dictionary definition that it is also a trail.
sidewalk
noun [ C ] US
UK /ˈsaɪd.wɔːk/ US /ˈsaɪd.wɑːk/
(UK pavement)
B1
a path with a hard surface on one or both sides of a road, that people walk on:
Keep on the sidewalk, Rosie, there's a good girl.
trail
noun
UK /treɪl/ US /treɪl/t
Trail noun (PATH)
B2 [ C ]
a path through a countryside, mountain, or forest area, often made or used for a particular purpose:
a forest/mountain trail
a walking/snowshoeing/cross-country skiing trail
Based on the definition above this is a path (not eligible on its own) that is a countryside walking trail through a wood and to a small lake (eligible as it now qualifies as a trail on several points).
Secondly - the point about private land, I'm not sure what's relevant? These are public rights of way that anyone is free to use, roam and explore. Plus if it had a trail name it would be an easy accept anyway, I don't think many people would argue that.
Thirdly, how is it not exploration? As mentioned before this is a path through the countryside where you can explore a local wood and the tarn. And anything else you might stumble across.
As I stated near start I actually reviewed the whole nomination, and remembered except whether I finally decided on 1* or 2*.
I took into account Giffards comments.
It is a right of way sign, but it is in heart of countryside linking green spaces.
It is a sign unique to that point as it had specific distances in each direction.
This all made in my opinion worth consideration whereas a plain footpath sign on a housing estate for example just gets a straight no.
There was clearly evidence of a damaged marker, but I could easily find this as part of a trail. I also had difficulty confirming the location.
So at best it was weak hovering on reject. So I’m not trying to justify that this is a wonderful nomination.
I do think it is worth taking Giffards comments into account which is about the location and the linking of open countryside spaces. Is the the route through the countryside so in this case a wooded area with lots to see and not just the side of a road with traffic passing. Do paths like this help someone explore and get exercise? Well in an area like this yes.
Submitters need to make a good case and reviewers should consider and make a judgement call.
PS it has been interesting to be able discuss a case I reviewed with the submitter directly. 👍