I realised I had 2 appeals available and nothing recent to appeal, so I looked back at some old rejections and decided to revisit 2 foot bridges in the local riverside parks.
Both appeals were rejected within a few hours - a very fast turnaround - and I wasn’t that happy with the reasons given.
This brick footbridge on the Reading Waterways Circular Route was rejected for having no pedestrian access, but its a narrow pedestrian footbridge (a car would not fit) which provides the access! This route uses I think 4 foot bridges to cross over a brook, some back waters of the river and then crosses over the river itself at a wier and lock - this route also passes a nature reserve so its a really popular route not just for access but for joggers and cyclists looking to enjoy the riverside area
And this one, which is not as pretty, but crosses the same brook in a different park was rejected for being generic. I didn’t think generic was a reason to reject something which encourages exercise and enables people to more fully explore a park which is divided into 2 sections by this brook, and there’s only 2 of these to enable people to cross over without getting wet feet! This park contains the Thames Path, and the only way to get to that from the village side of the park is to use this footbridge or another further down the park - or you’d have to leave the park and walk via the road bridges instead which is much less pleasant.
I would love it if staff could take another look at these and let me know if these rejections were correct, or if they were a little harsh. I had thought that these points of interest in parks which enable people to access trails and enjoy the parks would be within the wayfarer criteria.
Footbridges are not automatic wayspots. They have to be sold, because it’s quite easy to see them as standard infrastructure, which is not a POI. I would reject both of these based on the information above. (I seem to a harsher reviewer than @cyndiepooh)
I am not arguing that they are definitely eligible, but I do disagree that there is no pedestrian access, and I also disagree that they are natural features. So its the nature of the reasons I’m questioning with this post. I wasnt given “does not meet criteria” as a reason.
The brick one in particular is at a named trail and provides access to a nature reserve that is surrounded by waterways so the only other access there is to swim. Can you tell me more about what else I would need to do in order to convince you that its an important part of exercising and exploring in this riverside park?
Oh, the rejection reasons. I tend not to pay much attention to those when I get a rejected wayspot, since that just leads to frustration. I often get “no pedestrian access” for trail markers pointing at green space.
I take it as “reviewers didn’t like the submmission” and then look at it to see if it could be improved. (Occasionally, I shrug and take it as a sign that the POI wasn’t that interesting, and move on.)
I disagree that bridges facilitate exercise and exploration, because they don’t do this any more than the path leading up to the bridge. I also disagree that providing a view of the creek makes them special.
If I was submitting, I’d focus on the bridge for the wayspot photo, which neither of those do. If a bridge is on a named trail, that’s a definite plus, as is being the only access to a nature reserve. For me, it’s the photos that don’t work - I’d take them from the path leading towards the bridge, slightly off to the side so as to clearly show the bridge and the path together. Not always easy!
First time posting on the new forum, but long time lurker and was on the old forum. Had a similar experience. Recently nominated a big stone footbridge over a railway on a trail in a similar style to other accepted footbridges on the same trail. Had it rejected by Niantic reviewers initially for generic business, and then the appeal was also rejected for being a normal not distinct bridge. Have I missed a clarification somewhere that footbridges on trails are no longer eligible? I don’t see anything mentioned in Criteria Clarification Collection about footbridges.
I’d definitely reject footbridge #2 as it does not seem notable and is just a piece of infrastructure to stop you from getting wet feet while crossing the stream.
Footbridge #1 looks more interesting, I’d like to see if it has some history and certainly I would suggest emphasising any named walking trails that go through that point, along with some evidence. The photo has a lot of vegetation in it which might trigger the AI, that’s normally a good way to take a photo of an interesting bridge but in this case you might want to play about a little.
Yeah there’s a lot of trees around the brook so angles are really difficult on these pictures! The bridges are central to both photos so I think I’d need an example to picture what you mean
I accept that normal reviewers use random and wierd rejection reasons but appeals team are Niantic employees and are supposed to be the experts, so really its the least they can do to tell us the correct reason!
In terms of exploring the area, heres a map with some bridges circled. Top one is the brick bridge, and View Island is the nature reserve. As you can see, its surrounded by waterways and requires bridges for access. The named trail is a tour of the waterways of the town and crosses by this location
#2 is the 3rd circle. You can see the brook crosses the park and divides it completely. Without these bridges it would be a really small park, just with a couple of football pitches, and all the interesting stuff is blocked! but with them, it means you can go from the village across to the river which has some gorgeous walks including 2 named trails. I agree the bridge is not pretty, but its very useful if you want to do a 3km run rather than a few hundred metres so I do think it is very much linked to the criteria.
The brick one, yes lots of vegetation, but this pre-dates ML. These are generally best pictured during the winter when the trees drop their leaves, so to try again will need to get wet feet or to wait till late autumn
Some of those are awesome! But I’ve tried many angles with other bridges and honeslty never had one approved that wasnt a side view. I am really interested that the wide one with all the metalwork in the middle was accepted as it doesn’t really look like a footbridge at all! (Not to say its not eligible as I can’t tell from just 1 photo)
The one you are talking about is on an old railway, now a walking and cycling route, with the metalwork making it more interesting as it’s old railway infrastructure. It’s also on a named trail which was in the wayspot name. I wasn’t actually sure if it would get accepted, because not everyone is fanatical about old railways and there is no trail marker, but I was wanting to plug gaps in the Ingress portal network for flying my drone (and could demonstrate the trail used the bridge).
I didn’t include those details in my post above because I was concentrating on the photos. A bad photo will destroy a wayspot as many reviewers won’t look after an initial “no”
Sorry late to this conversation.
But thought I would throw in my view.
Footbridges don’t have to look great, although some obviously do. It is for me about their function. That function is what I look at.
A footbridge on a walking route enables continuation of that exercise/exploration. On a named route it is a notable point on a trail and acts like a trail marker ( most on footpaths in the U.K. have a marker anyway).
I have seen culverts described footbridges and those are not meeting criteria.
Common Sense ( which disappears sometimes ) says that a footbridge is accessible so as a rejection reason it is a nonsense.
What does need assessing is value of the bridge. If it is a short bridge joining two streets then to me that is generally infrastructures it’s just a continuation of the pavement in effect and it isn’t built to facilitate exercise / exploration as a specific route would.
This is a grey area where judgement will vary but that’s why there are human reviewers. I wouldn’t criticise either submitter or reviewer for those cases.
Things have improved for footbridges since those original submissions. But if submitted now as part of a walking route I would have a positive response.
I think footbridges do live on the border between what is acceptable and what isn’t. As with all marginal submissions, anything that can be done to improve photos, descriptions and supporting text may give it a nudge over the line. It’s down to the luck of the draw who reviews it.
This is what Id most like to know from the staff on why the appeal reviewer chose that specific rejection reason - it made no sense to me
Same for the generic bridge - if something needs to be non-generic to meet exercise and explore criteria, I’d like to know. The generic bridge is the difference between the park being just a football pitch ending at the brook, or a massive riverside park with a swan sanctuary, children’s adventure playground and paddling pool, picnic area, and pick up for river cruises. As that is all across the brook and nearer the river.
I am happy to be told my nominations don’t meet criteria - arent strong enough, whatever. That’s clear, and is fine.
But saying a footbridge doesnt have pedestrian access makes no sense and thats what I wanted to clear up with this post, plus why a bridge being generic matters or not
Always glad to have a new poster
Nothing has changed since the criteria clarification.
Did you resubmit the rejected footbridge? If you have been reading then you will know that if you post in nomination support we will be happy to help.
so I do think it is very much linked to the criteria.
) says that a footbridge is accessible so as a rejection reason it is a nonsense.