Title:
SE Clinton & 38th Ave Neighborhood Greenway Trail
Description:
Neighborhood Greenways provide bikers and walkers priority over cars.
Supporting Info: https://www.portland.gov/transportation/what-are-neighborhood-greenways Neighborhood Greenways promote exercise and exploration by providing a safe route where pedestrians and bikers have priority over cars. There is a low speed limit and infrastructure on neighborhood greenways to make them safer for people.
Location: 45°30’12.3"N 122°37’27.9"W
Looking for some insight on bike/pedestrian trail markers and what I can do to improve this submission for next time.
I had this one be auto-denied for not meeting criteria.
My best guess as to why the ML model rejected this is that it only detected a street sign in the main photo. I can’t make a recommendation on a different way to frame the photo to make it clearer that you are submitting a greenway without making the photo look bad. Maybe someone else can.
If you choose to appeal this nomination, you should make it about the “greenway” and point out the sidewalk, since bike routes along roads have iffy pedestrian access. You get two appeals, each on a 20 day counter before you can use it again, if you want to go that route.
Thanks for the advice. I will resubmit and try a different photo and see if that was the problem.
One of the other submitters in my area said something similar about the ML model having problems with street signs.
This doesn’t seem like a trail marker in the slightest to me. It’s just a traffic sign that signifies that this is a street where cars are allowed, but so are pedestrians and cyclists and the cars have to be careful.
Do you have an advice on how to make a neighborhood greenway worthy of being a way spot? I don’t know if any specific maps along the route since the signs provide the guidance. I understand that it was denied but I’m hoping for advice not criticism.
I found a great source of what makes a bike sign eligible or not. Just in case anyone comes across this post and is looking for advice instead of the usual “not eligible” comment with no extra info.
Good post you found. As someone who bikes, I can confirm that bike lanes along roads just aren’t safe to play in - whether you stop or try to play while riding. Dedicated bike trails are good, bike lanes are not.
The trail should be safely accessible to pedestrians. Generic utility identifiers and street furniture such as street names, car traffic directional signs, and bike lane signs (et cetera) are not eligible.
It seems like some people who commented here did not see (or did not understand) the “greenway” sign with the image of the person walking and the sidewalk the sign is beside. This is not just a bike lane nomination:
Thank you for clarifying Cyndie.
I apologize for my frustration but part of my frustration is that commenters don’t see to fully read/view the post and then make general statements like, “bike lanes aren’t pedestrian friendly”, which isn’t a consideration on this post as Cyndiebee mentioned. This Greenway is for pedestrians AND bikers - like the sign suggests.
As Cyndie clarified, this is NOT a bike lane. It is a pedestrian AND walker friendly street and is designed to be a path to follow per the city planners.
Well this is one of the reason why nomination should be reviewed by local community. Personally i dont have such greenway here. Sorry if my comment is incorrect.
I am someone who loves trails and set pathways.
On a global basis there is a mix of how they are described and marked some things that locals recognise as trails have had problems being recognised.
I am interested in this description of the Greenway project. I love the concept of published routes designed to assist and encourage walking.
However these do not seem to be a clear cut case of how they fit in with established description. It may be that there is a mix of paths but the page and the leaflet seem describe what I would consider ordinary pavements (sidewalks) adjusted to make walking easier. I don’t see specific named/numbered routes.
To add here I did a further dive around the site.
The environmentalist in me applauds the scheme as it is a great way to help reduce Carbon emissions. But these are ordinary streets.
The signage is the same as direction signs for pedestrians to get from A → B
This has to be a country thing. I don’t understand why your Footpaths through SFPRP are eligible, but I don’t debate their eligibility or tell people on the forum that they should not be eligible. Greenways in the US are safe routes to walk with signage for that purpose. Greenways encourage exercise.
I appreciate the extra research you did. However, greenways are not just normal streets. Greenways have specific infrastructure where cars cannot continue on them at certain intersections - only bikes or pedestrians.
Don’t these encourage exercise and exploration?
At this intersections, there is only a westbound lane for bikes, cars cannot go through this intersection. And the green paved portions are sensors so bikers can notify the traffic light.
I think its like bus stop/bench. Those might be eligible but Niantic dont want every bus stop/bench to become wayspot. I believe its similar. Maybe its eligible but i imagine there will be many of this thing scattered in many junction.
Sure I could agree with that.
I guess my next question is one about density. If there are trail markers along the route, at what point do they become ineligible? Other than due to cells.
