- Wayspot Title: the health trail tunnel
- Location (lat/lon): (52.0500578,-0.0410777)
- City: Royston
- Country: UK
- Screenshot of the Rejection Email (do not include your personal information):
- Additional Information * This tunnel is located at the junction of several trails, including the health trail that runs from the neighbouring estate. This tunnel is regularly used by runners and walkers to access the trails leading though to Bassingbourn. It also provides a safe shortcut to nearby supermarkets without the need to use a car. This tunnel was recently renovated, a now has a new pavement. In addition, the local running club uses this route every week. Please see the attached screenshot of the map showing all the paths that converge at this tunnel. Finally, although I understand this is not part of the wayfarer criteria, this area currently has very few Pokestops or Gyms, so an additional Wayspot here would greatly benefit the local community. I would really appreciate any feedback on how I could improve my application. Thank you for your help.
Are you trying to appeal a rejected nomination? You do that from your contribution. We get 2 appeals, each on a 15 day counter before we can use them again. If you do not have the “Appeal” button on your rejected submission, then you do not currently have one to use. There is no time limit to making an appeal.
If you would like to discuss the nomination with forum members, this information is helpful:
Please provide:
- A screenshot of your nomination, including rejection reasons if it has already been rejected
- Include the title, description, both photos, and supplemental information
- Copy and paste the title, description and supplemental so others can translate them
- If you feel comfortable please share the location, as it is helpful (i.e. hidden duplicates), but you can mask it if you wish.
Thank you Cyndiepooh. I wanted to get some feedback before I appeal my rejected nomination. I think I gave all the info you suggested on my post. Any help would be welcome. Thank you.
Was the rejection reason on the contribution something about the “automated process”? If so, then no human has seen this yet.
We don’t know exactly what the machine learning model is looking for, but this looks like something I would submit if that is a pedestrian only trail. I will let the UK folks tell you more about how reviewers there feel about tunnels like this. I think a tunnel on a pedestrian pathway makes using it for exercise and exploration possible, so I think they are good wayspots.
I don’t see your description to double check the words used there. The supporting text you linked does a good job of explaining why you think this is significant. Some of the UK reviewers may give you specifics on what they would want to see there as well.
I only see one photo. Is this the main? If so, if you do resubmit, I would use a main photo that is more centered on the entrance and cropped to remove some of the background, but not so much that you can’t tell what it is. Something like this:
I don’t see this tunnel on street view, so can’t give you suggestions on a good supporting photo.
If you would rather appeal, we get 2 appeals, each on a 15 day counter before we can use them again. I usually try a resubmit first since appeals are more limited. I can’t predict how they will see this.
Thank you! Those are great suggestions, specially cropping the photo and re-submit first rather than appeal straight away. 
Hello @Sarazinha
I moved this to Nomination Support since it is not an Appeal for the forum. I see that @cyndiepooh has already given you some great advice, best of luck with your appeal.
Pedestrian bridges can often get accepted, but I haven’t seen an underpass getting accepted. This isn’t a tunnel, but an underpass to funnel pedestrians underneath a railway. It doesn’t encourage exercise and is definitely not a place for socialising or exploring.
I would not resubmit or appeal this.
Yeah the ML doesn’t seem to like these, I wonder if it doesn’t know what it is?
I submitted this underpass on a walking and cycling trail recently and the ML rejected it. I was trying to think how to resubmit. I was going to crop it a bit more too, so let’s see if I can get it to reviewers!
I feel like our submissions are relatively similar and I do think access on a trail over or under a hazard like a road, water or a railway encourages exercise, so these to me form a similar thing to a footbridge which do tend to be more popular nominations. If we didn’t have these, the trails would just stop wouldn’t they, or they’d be less safe, which is discouraging!
I agree, this underpass opened a new route to run to the next village or to walk to the supermarkets without the need to go through the middle of town. I walk to the supermarkets, rather than take the car around town. It also opened a safe dog walking route to reach the Heath from town. I don’t understand why an underpass/tunnel would not be considered if it serves a good purpose. Good luck with your application!
A pedestrian crossing serves a good purpose. Serving a good purpose for pedestrians is not sufficient for something to be targeted at Exercise, Social or Exploration, which is what every wayspot must meet. Simply being interesting or useful is not sufficient.
Thank you for your comment. So why do you consider an underpass different from a pedestrian bridge? Thanks.
Underpasses tend to be less safe than bridges. They are often used to funnel pedestrians out of the way of cars (I know this is one is a railway bridge, so that doesn’t apply here). They are an excellent place to find graffiti, urine smells, drug dealings and people hanging around at night. Many women do not feel comfortable using underpasses even in daylight and definitely not at night. You are enclosed and have limited visibility.
Long bridges do also have a safety question, as you can’t escape from them, but you have much better visibility. Pedestrian bridges can be found in parks, in the countryside, over rivers etc. Underpasses appear almost exclusively in urban areas and a footbridge in the same position would often struggle as a wayspot.
An underpass on a walking route is normally an annoyance and an obstruction. A bridge on a walking route often feels like something you are happy to come across.
None of this relates in any way to criteria.
I see both underpasses and footbridges as ways to enable someone to continue following a trail, thereby enabling exercise. There’s nothing inherently unsafe about them - they make the trail safer rather than making us use a level crossing or walk across a busy road.
There is definitely something inherently unsafe about underpasses. I recommend searching for underpasses and safety.
A pedestrian crossing enables someone to continue following a trail, therefore enabling exercise. A pavement enables someone to continue following a trail, therefore enabling exercise.
Although I see where you are coming from, I think you are mixing up a lot of factors. Not all underpasses are unsafe, depends on their location. Also not all underpasses are the same, like for instance their length, this one spans two train lines, so it isn’t long at all, in 5-10 seconds you are on the other side. It isn’t dark at all. I never felt unsafe crossing it. And not all underpasses are in heavy urban areas. But your comments are noted.
I don’t see any substantial functional difference between a bridge that takes you over something and a bridge above that allows you to go under.
Both allow you to continue on your way along a route.
That is not to say that every bridge/ underpass will then be acceptable. There is a separate assessment to be done against other questions and the submitter should make the case.
This is my take on it too. They’re still notable points on a trail and help people continue walking over/under obstacles.
Not always easy nominations or good ones but I do think they are worth a try! Certainly I stand by my nomination here and wish the ML had let it go to reviewers.
An underpass serves the exact same purpose as a footbridge. They should qualify under the same merits.
I agree with the idea that bridges and underpasses should be treated the same but I disagree with the idea that they should be accepted just because they allow you to continue.
If you nominate the bridge / underpass then there should be something different about it. the question I ask myself is “Is it infrastructure?”.
I often see road bridges that are going over a canal. Nominators realise the road bridge part will usually be rejected so will try for the path under it. IMO these are infrastructure and I reject but many are accepted, that is just the way of Niantic.
For canals, the bridges are numbered (and often named). What goes over is irrelevant from the perspective of the canal. When walking along urban canals, you often feel separated from the rest of the area and the bridges are genuinely notable points as you come to them. This is why those bridges get accepted - they are important to the canal itself.