Footpath Rejection - Please Clarify



  • JillJilyJabadoo-PGOJillJilyJabadoo-PGO Posts: 1,082 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited May 2022

    [Deleted because I decided it was going a bit off topic.]

  • RandomExploit-INGRandomExploit-ING Posts: 895 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Niantic recently confirmed a trail does not need to be a named trail. They also said a simple arrow is enough on a public footpath disc, as long as it's pointing to somewhere you can explore.

    Those who like to reject everything they can are ignoring this and people in certain wayfarer groups have said they will continue to reject.. which means others in their group will to keep their agreements up.

    So we are still getting them badly rejected due to bad Wayfarers who know better

  • tomwe-PGOtomwe-PGO Posts: 127 ✭✭✭
    edited June 2022

    Finally stumbling into one of these clarifications on Trail Markers.

    This bit below is what Niantic said:

    a) A marker with the trail name on the trail <- Excellent (Correct)

    b) A marker with the trail name on a street <- Good (Correct)

    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)

    e) A marker with no trail name on the street <- Not Good (Correct)

    Do I take this to mean e) is a 1* , I should use my judgement for d), c) & d) generally getting a pass and a) being 5* ?

    I'm happy to do this, and apologise to recent "generic" arrows I've 1*ed.

    Does this apply to circular council "public footpath" arrows as well as 'flag' shaped post-mounted directional signs?

    Or must it be named trail rather than just a public right of way through a rural setting, regardless of the kind of marker?

    (thanks I tried to post this with some images but it doesn't seem to want to take)

    edit: i've tried it with links to images instead.

  • ElwynGreygoose-INGElwynGreygoose-ING Posts: 244 ✭✭✭✭

    It's up to you to decide whether the submitter has made an adequate case, with credible evidence, that the POI candidate meets one of the criteria. The problem we have is that someone sees something in the game as a POI and then thinks they can nominate each and every other instance of such an object. That's not how it works. Every nomination must be considered on its merits. Would the title, photo and description make you jump up out of your seat and go exploring?

  • RandomExploit-INGRandomExploit-ING Posts: 895 ✭✭✭✭✭

    The post where that clarification was also includes an image of a simple arrow saying they are ok as submission

    Near the bottom of the page you can that post

  • goongillings-PGOgoongillings-PGO Posts: 24 ✭✭

    Hi, I know this is an old post but it seems relevant. I go running on a public footpath that goes from the village across two farms and ends on a public Quay on the Helford river. Boats traverse the river freely and land on the Quay which is open to the public and has informationsign and bench. Its a popular destination with I would estimate around 100 walkers daily. Everything I submit (signs, stile/gate, art/sculpture l, memorial Bench x 2, Quay, pond, etc) is rejected as private land/farm. Is this normal? Its sort of true, but ignores that it's a public footpath. I'm specifically trying not to take pictures of generic public footpath signs here and add destination and way points on the various runs I exercise on. Is this normal, or niantic policy, or a local Reviewer being pedantic?

  • Elijustrying-INGElijustrying-ING Posts: 4,820 Ambassador

    Hello and welcome @goongillings-PGO

    Can you provide both the main and supplementary photos for a few of the rejected -use the paperclip to avoid delays due to the post being moderated.

    Can you also please, cut and paste the title, description and supplementary text so that It is easy for any one who needs it to translate.

    If you are happy to do so the exact location - co ordinates or full address

    Finally can you provide the reasons it was rejected.

  • goongillings-PGOgoongillings-PGO Posts: 24 ✭✭


    To add to above two rejections specifically because of "low quality photo". The low quality is only the auto-generated thumbnail- when the photo is clicked it's obviously high quality! For some reason can't find original images on phone, so have downloaded from the example submission. Here title & description is "pond bench", reasons for rejection "Low Quality Photo, Orientation", supplemental info is "Memorial Bench by the pond, along footbath leading from woods. You can clearly see the pond on the Google maps view. The island shown is just out of view on the right of the picture.". I can get map ref when I next go for run, but screenshot of location shown. We are a rural location so street view difficult. I think (apart from the quality/thumbnail issue) the default rejection of farm seems to override the fact that public footpaths are public! I'll use next post for next example (there are lots - in fact every submission so far).

  • goongillings-PGOgoongillings-PGO Posts: 24 ✭✭

    "The river gate", rejection reason "low quality photograph, natural feature", supplementaldetail "just off the footpath, a well known gate that leads directly onto the Helford river."

    I get that this was rejected because the gate is boring, if unusual to have a gate on a public footpath to a (public) river. However rejecting for low quality photograph???? Default thumbnail is blurred as is the previous example.

  • goongillings-PGOgoongillings-PGO Posts: 24 ✭✭

    Another (not) blurry photograph. Here it's a sign to a farm, that marks the entrance of the "public footpath" to Constantine village. Title "Polwartha Farm Footpath", Description "Entrance to Polwartha Farm and footpath.", supplemental "Entrance to farm from main road, also marks the footpath that leads to Constantine village.", Rejection reason "Private Residence or Farm, Low Quality Photo". Yes it's just a sign for a farm, but it's a "public footpath" leading to the village which is mentioned and verifiable on Google maps. Again here the poor photo, but the sign is centrefold and high quality. A bit of shade? Yes the auto-generated thumbnail is blurry. Real argument is farm/vs footpath? Or just boring (seeing some of the verified signs on wayfinder I'd say I am not the only source of boring signs ;-)

  • goongillings-PGOgoongillings-PGO Posts: 24 ✭✭

    More contentious example here - again a sign/sculpture (?) - because its viewable from the "public footpath", but on/in a shed on a farm.

    "Gather Sign", "Gather Sign, originally made by artists for the gather festival which was held on the farm. Now permanently installed in the hangar shed. This shed is situated about half way along the public footpath leading from Constantine village to Scotts Quay"

    Rejection reason: "Private Residence or farm".

    Perhaps I should have added that the shed is permanently open. You can see from the supplemental image a dog on the "public footpath", and its specifically mentioned as being public. I'm sure I've bored any readers enough for now. Would be great if niantic could make clear the private farm vs public footpath thing, as the whole of Cornwall is made up of footpaths on private farm areas. Technically the entire Helford river is privately owned by the Royal Family (legally and in practice - they charge rent for mooring boats), and in theory private, but literally hundreds of thousands of boating visitors every year!

  • Elijustrying-INGElijustrying-ING Posts: 4,820 Ambassador

    Thanks @goongillings-PGO

    The Helford River is a lovely part of Cornwall.

    Having looked at these there are issues, and some misunderstandings.

    First silly though it sounds don’t always take the reasons something is rejected literally, some people misclick, and others have slightly skewed understanding of the phrase used. You don’t mention if there was a line that said “other rejection criteria”. This is often misread as a heading for what follows. What it actually means is a key rejection reason is that the nomination doesn’t meet the criteria. And I suspect that was the **** dame tale reason for these.

    Benches. These can sometimes be suitable IF they are artistic (eg carved) or commemorate a prominent person or they act as an “anchor” / place marker for a view. It’s not an exhaustive list but it needs to have something very special about it. So the bench you have doesn’t tick those boxes. You might actually do better with the wooden platform built out into the pond, presumably for pond dipping activity. It won’t be an easy sell but it probably stands a better chance.

    The gate as you say is not special. Ignore the rejection reasons, it just doesn’t meet criteria.

    Polwartha Farm As this is about the farm it is correctly rejected. The footpath has potential and should be the focus. Is there a public footpath sign? It is probably a very simple one but as it is rural you might with a very good description etc get it accepted.

    Gather Sign. This looks interesting and I like the backstory…..but frustrating though it is, because it is the barn it is correctly rejected as Farm/PRP. It doesn’t matter that it can be seen from the footpath and that the current owner leaves it open and no doubt from time to time walkers shelter there from the weather and nobody thinks anything about it, it is private property.

    The right of way that the public footpath grants is just that the right walk over that route. Your best bets are the footpath signs. If you can provide a link to a website showing the routes it will help. Often these are on council databases and are assigned a reference number. You could try approaching the local parish council, council or ramblers group to see they could get a project to provide a trail using the footpaths to promote exercise and exploration of the area both for locals and visitors.

    More than happy to try and help with how to present the nominations.

  • Elijustrying-INGElijustrying-ING Posts: 4,820 Ambassador

    There is a footpath nearby

    And you can see the path on satellite view

    A new point here should turn the Trengilly Inn into a gym.

    It would take a bit of work and persistence but it’s a better choice.

    There are also small groups of holiday cottages. Do any have a small play area as that would be acceptable.

  • Belahzur-INGBelahzur-ING Posts: 626 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Elijustrying - Please stop encouraging and enabling coal submissions due to the sheer quantity and insignificance of them.

    With that said goongillings - Consider the 2 fingerposts near there, see attachment - ID CW_SW7227 and CW_SW7228

    Some history of them - a lot of the original original fingerposts were removed during WWI and WWII to confuse the German paratroop invaders, and they were either lost (no one remembers where they went when they removed the original fingerposts, or they were just never put back/replaced post-WWII), the surviving fingerposts are either the lucky few who were forgotten about and were never removed during the wars, or modern replica replacements (for historical purposes), some now Grade II Listed, there's an entire list of them documented here if you look for Constantine in the list.

    There's more cool stuff if you know what to look for and where to look for it.

  • goongillings-PGOgoongillings-PGO Posts: 24 ✭✭

    Another rejection, and this one is a doozy.

    Absolutely seething about the one. Rejected because its a natural feature! Literally didn't read any of description, the supplemental or even know that a Quay is by definition "man made".


    a stone or metal platform lying alongside or projecting into water for loading and unloading ships."

    Made of blocks of solid granite in the form of a wall. Here is a picture at low tide. It's even marked on the map as "Scott's quay". Google it and many articles e.g.

    Rejection reason "Natural feature"

    Description "Scott's Quay. Built in the early 1800s by Charles Scott."

    Supplement "Marks the end of the public footpath. very popular as can be seen from google search. Historical landmark as was built in the early 1800s by Charles Scott."

    No option to appeal - this is like a joke at this point!

  • Elijustrying-INGElijustrying-ING Posts: 4,820 Ambassador


    I’m glad you found those other markers. It’s always good to give ideas, which is what I have done.

    Obviously I disagree with your interpretation, and people can differ and there few clear cut rules.

    As I said none of these are at all easy to be accepted. However they are not impossible. Personally I love finding footpaths to enable me to walk and explore away from narrow Cornish roads. Exercising and exploring are key criteria so are eligible for consideration. It is then up to the submitter to convince reviewers that they are acceptable. I don’t think every public footpath marker warrants acceptance but neither do I think they instantly warrant rejection. I have seen strong arguments that finger post signs should just be considered as traffic signs.

    I also think that working with your community is a great idea. Everyone benefits.

  • Elijustrying-INGElijustrying-ING Posts: 4,820 Ambassador


    The quay

    from the information presented to the reviewers, natural feature was a good choice for rejection.

    The picture just appears to be a section of flat grass. There is very little in the description/ supplementary other than stating it’s a quay. And your photos don’t look like a quay..

    You can appeal - you get one every month.

    But I would try improving it first- I like Industrial archaeology.

    The webpage you linked to said there is an information board. Is it still there and in a reasonable state? If it’s is that is what you want to submit. And that page also had loads of info to inform a good description.

  • goongillings-PGOgoongillings-PGO Posts: 24 ✭✭

    The Information board is degraded. The farmer makes them himself.

    I get what you are saying re. "Quay", but it's in the title, the description, the supplemental detail, and prominently displayed as a location on the Google map! At the time I couldn't picture the granite blocks because of the tide (I'd have been underwater). I'll go back on a run in a couple of days but not holding my breath because...

    Overnight another submission rejected because of "orientation" and "other rejection criteria" but no notes/detail. Honestly if my photos are bad then you should see the competition that has been accepted.

    Thank you for feedback, but when I've resubmitted the Quay I think that's it for me as I clearly don't have what it takes (graffiti and unusual waste bins not knocking decent graffiti here!). Seems a shame that locations that are at the end of walks in the countryside should be promoted rather than rejected, but it seems the whoever is reviewing my submissions disagrees.


    Bench inscribed "2018", "CB", and "JL" in memorial. Marked by a Cornish flag, and being the site of a settlement dating back to Roman times.


    Memorial Bench on footpath. Marks a scenic viewpoint, flagpole and historic settlement that dates back to roman times (as marked on ordinance survey maps).Easiest verification is to use satellite View on the map. You can see the round outline of the settlement in the hedge lines of the field. The bench is to the right of the entrance when looking at in this way.

  • Leedle95-PGOLeedle95-PGO Posts: 498 ✭✭✭

    “Overnight another submission rejected because of "orientation" and "other rejection criteria" but no notes/detail. Honestly if my photos are bad then you should see the competition that has been accepted.”

    Honestly, the pics of the bench are from too far away and there is no evidence of an established trail/path nearby. We don’t have access to Google maps, but the screenshot of the map that you included doesn’t show anything that you mention (viewpoint, settlement) and the bench alone would not be eligible.

  • flatmatt-PGOflatmatt-PGO Posts: 1,982 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Yes, the primary photo for the bench is from way too far away. While "Orientation" is not the correct rejection reason for this, the person who chose that rejection reason was likely trying to communicate "there's something wrong with the way they chose to take the photo."

    As for "Other rejection criteria," that seems correct to me. Your nomination talks a lot about an ancient settlement, but your nomination is for the bench, and you haven't explained the significance of the bench. Just happening to be located at a historic site does not mean an object meets the criteria. You mention that the bench has certain letters and numbers, but you don't explain what they mean. Are they connected to the ancient site? If so, how (and can you prove it)? These are the kinds of things I'd want answers to if I were reviewing this nomination.

  • goongillings-PGOgoongillings-PGO Posts: 24 ✭✭

    The problem is - do I photograph the Bench on the ancient site or the ancient site with the Bench on it (??). Mentioned in the supplemental that the ancient site is marked on the ordinance survey maps (not sure how I would prove this), mentioned how you can verify by looking at satellite view. Tried to show the worn path in the supplemental photo, can't show the scenic view as well as the ancient site and the Bench. No idea how that would work.

    Just got another rejection - tennis courts z now ilk admit was unsure if I'd get this through as they are for residents of the holiday cottages. Mentioned this, and clearly visible on Google maps that holiday cottages. Rejected as private residence. So what is the difference between leisure/exercise play areas/courts at e.g. campsites (many of which I have seen approved), and the same in holiday chalets????

  • flatmatt-PGOflatmatt-PGO Posts: 1,982 ✭✭✭✭✭

    If you're nominating the bench, photograph the bench. But that also means the bench itself has to meet the acceptance criteria. As I mentioned, merely being located on a historic site does not mean the bench itself meets the criteria.

    If you're nominating the area, then you will need to find something tangible that represents the area like a sign, as there don't seem to be any remaining structures on the site. Otherwise, you will just have a photo of landscape (and a bench with no apparent relation to the historical site).

  • goongillings-PGOgoongillings-PGO Posts: 24 ✭✭

    Thanks - do you know the recommendations re. Facilities for chalets/holiday cottages like tennis courts? For the one that got rejected today there are no private residences, only the holiday cottages the farmer doesn't even live on the farm (and doesn't play tennis he's 70+).. or is it just likely a dead end?

  • The26thDoctor-PGOThe26thDoctor-PGO Posts: 4,252 ✭✭✭✭✭

    They should be fine, I've had a tennis court accepted at holiday cottages.

    You just have to make sure you don't inadvertently make it look like it's private property.

  • Elijustrying-INGElijustrying-ING Posts: 4,820 Ambassador

    i did see the tennis court as I looked around and wondered about it.

    If it’s available as a facility for the holiday cottages it should be fine - just like when I asked if there was a play area.

    Can you provide the photos and text so that we can advise on presentation of the nomination. For example is there a sign or webpage that references the court?

    Please hang on in there. You have potential to bring this rural area into Lightship and therefore games but you need help with what will work best and how to present things well. And there are people here willing to help….although some will be more relevant in nomination improvement area.

    Are there any local history groups?

  • goongillings-PGOgoongillings-PGO Posts: 24 ✭✭

    This is great news! The tennis court mentioned on the site (link below) - ironically nearly everything that got rejected is on the page - Scotts Quay, court and pond (described as lake, but I think that's a bit of am exaggeration as well). No wind today - as can't get out on the water so I'll be on a run and can take some pictures. I was due an upgrade, but the system randomly applied it to another submission, but if there is thr potential to get something accepted I'll up the pace on the reviewing grind again..

Sign In or Register to comment.