I’m reaching out for some advice and guidance with something that I’ve seen mentioned here a few times before. Bike trail markers!
Context:
There is a large, 36-acre, park in my city. It is nestled right up against a high school. On the public sidewalk that lines the high school and runs up and down the entirety of the park there is a dedicated bike trail. I’ve included a graphic below of the trail (the black line measuring about 3000 ft or 900m) and the position of every Bike Route sign (the white dots along the measurement line).
As you can see, I have included the fact that they are on a public sidewalk and not on the High School property. There is one Sign marking the Beginning of the route (see below), one marking the end of the route, and six more that line the entirety of the path.
This is a rather short bike trail, but the fact that it is located within such a large park would, in my eyes, encourage both exercise and exploration. The route markers are necessary to guide bikers along the path and keep them from straying onto school property or the busy parking lots. How would you guys view and/or review these?
Hmmm, would that wording really make it ineligible? Here’s an image of one of the other markers that shows that there is a sidewalk with shade and the large open grassy areas.
Would you recommend I try to include more of the surrounding area that focuses on the pedestrian access? Google Streetview also shows that there is plenty of sidewalk and park area for people who are walking.
These are pretty generic bike route signs. They’re all over my city, and I bet they’re easy to get and replace. I look at them similar to other traffic signs, like a stop sign, speed limit sign, etc: indistinct. They don’t meet eligibility criteria as they simply mark where bikers can ride and not a specific bike trail.
There really is zero chance that these will be accepted because of how generic the signs are and in so many cities.
The entire path runs along a sidewalk and public park. Pedestrian access is not an issue and Google Streetview backs my claim (as shown here) . I may have misspoken in my opening message here, I apologize. It should be more along the lines of “dedicated to a bike trail”.
I’d recommend that you review the Wayspot criteria to know what is and isn’t eligible:
The Rejection Criteria even explains why these signs don’t meet criteria:
Does not meet eligibility criteria
Does not seem to be a great place of exploration, place for exercise, or place to be social. The object is mass-produced, generic, or not visually unique or interesting.
None of these will be approved, even the begin and end, as they are generic and indistinct, too. Really, this is an area designated for bikers, as many cities don’t allow bikes on sidewalks, only areas marked as bike routes or bike lanes. We have both where I live, and some end once they get to residential neighborhoods.
Most likely, these will be rejected by the ML, the AI system, and won’t even get to community voting. If they did get to community voting, they would most likely be rejected.
Got it, the generic sign part makes sense, thank you.
For future reference, let’s say these bike route markers were unique, artistically designed, or individual in some way that makes them stand out; would they be valid nominations?
In the case of this specific bike route, pedestrian access is clearly not an issue as it runs completely parallel to a public sidewalk and a public park along its entirety and has no access restrictions whatsoever.
I simply ask so I learn what I should keep in mind for future nominations and such.
Yes, unique trail signs are eligible. There are many trail markers that have been approved, especially since they do mark out a known trail. We even have criteria clarification about trail markers here:
Those “bike route” signs are quite ubiquitous in my area. I think of them more as alerting vehicle traffic that there may be bicyclists than really encouraging exploration or exercise for the cyclist. As a daily bike rider, I kind of ignore them because they aren’t doing me any favors, they’re just usually on side streets that make me go out of my way but still put me in direct traffic.
I took a minute to pull examples of “bike route” signs and how I see their eligibility. Keep in mind that most bike route signs are alongside streets and don’t have inherent pedestrian access. These examples that I say I approve are assuming pedestrian access to the sign and/or route and are strictly my opinion and not explicit criteria examples…
Happy to engage with anyone who thinks further clarification on these examples is necessary or if you disagree. Again, personal take, and US centered background.
This gives me hope that they wouldn’t be immediately shot down like the previous commenters mentioned might happen haha!
Based on what I’ve posted so far, would you recommend I highlight the fact that the bike route has pedestrian access through its entire length via the description and clearer images of the surrounding area?
Or do you agree that they are also much too generic to try to nominate?
I submitted a bike route a couple of days ago and it was accepted by my local community- I am in the UK. It’s a national trail, but I’ve had similar local ones approved too.
In my opinion, biking trails encourage exercise and exploring. If you want to try yours again, I’d recommend talking more about the park as your route explores it. Maybe it would help reviewers see the positives.
I honestly cant see much difference some of what was shown above as eligible/ineligible because those signs arent from the UK and I’m not familiar with the way they look. So every country can differ. Would just recommend really “selling” what makes this route cool.
The NCN routes are being more readily accepted here than they used to be. They are official trails and well maintained. I havent seen any removed. Thats reserved just for your country
