I have had many signs like these accepted around here, but for some reason the appeals team didn’t think this one was anything more than a “regular directional sign”… despite the fact they should be eligible according to the “Trail & Markers” clarification post saying so. Despite looking generic they are PRoW signs. I’d like some clarification. Thanks!
Title of Wayspot Submission: A338 to Drayton Bridleway sign
Description of this submission: Follow the Bridleway between East Hanney & Frilford towards Drayton. In faded text it reads “Drayton 3 (Miles)”.
Supplemental Information: Can be seen on Google Street View. This sign can be seen on the following map as 198/4 Finger Post/General on Bridleway 198/1/10 at East Hanney: Public Rights of Way . These are PRoW, which are eligible according to the criteria listed in this forum post: Trails & Markers
I find that PROW markers leaving from roads are 50/50 for acceptance/rejection. Ones in the fields/woods/meadows/etc are 90/10 for acceptance/rejection.
Since I’m providing similar descriptions, titles etc in both cases, I’m fairly sure that road/not road is a key factor.
This harks back to the original comment from Niantic that opened the door to PROW markers as valid wayspots. Although that comment has been superceded and is no longer valid, it did distinguish between these two categories of PROW markers with ones leaving from roads being distinctly inferior.
The op has submitted this much like I would. There is no attempt to claim it is a trail. I dislike the submissions where an attempt is made to upgrade regular PROW to a trail.
PROW without a named trail are generally eligible. Some of them (in-between housing going from one street to the next one) are less eligible than others.
As I said, they are 50/50 - I get them accepted on roads (pointing at the countryside) but also rejected.
This is the comment I am referencing. To me, the former is PROW in fields/woodland etc while the latter is PROW on the roadside (whether pointing into countryside or not).
”A marker with no trail name on an open green space area ← Good enough. A marker with no trail name on the street ← Not Good”
It’s a shame the bridleway was rejected, it looked like a good submission.
Public footpaths and bridleways are essentially named in the UK (ie have a reference that identifies them) and they are frequently good places to exercise and explore.
I was able to submit this, it’s be a road too, that didnt seem to be an issue, nor did the broken sign (have submitted faded ones before too). With trail markers of any kind, we’re really submitting a section of the route, not the marker itself, so it’s condition or what irs made of shouldn’t matter too much as long as it’s still clear enough to read.
They are definitely good places for exercise and exploration. That they are essentially named is a stretch. I submit a lot of PROW markers, but I never dig up the official name, since it’s meaningless to anyone outside of the industry. I think trying to claim that the name of a non-trail-PROW matters is .. not good.
Wait, bridleways are acceptable? That’s new, ive never bothered to submit any, admittedly its more just horseshoe painted onto a post so its not as good as this sign but even if it was a sign I wouldnt have bothered
PROW come in four categories. Footpaths (pedestrians only), bridleways (pedestrians, horses and bicicyles), restricted byways (anything without a motor), byways open to all traffic (aniything).
Bridleways and footpaths go together for the purposes of wayspots. Byways are dependent on the local conditions (is it actually used by vehicles vs theoretically can be).
PROW are generally acceptable. Those in open space (fields, woodlands etc) will almost always be accepted, even if it’s just the footpath arrow (not any arrow, it’s a specific one) or a horseshoe (again, there’s a standard for these).
Generic PROW in my opinion, these rights of way are not distinct and don’t form part of any named trail. In some cases they are ancient and pre-date the roads surrounding them, because they never got upgraded to the status of roads themselves. It’s different from (say) trail markers in the US where the trail is more modern and is actually a trail.
I can see three similar generic PROW markers from my front door. None of them are a wayspot.
They definitely can be accepted but I always find that the metal signs are harder to get accepted than the wooden ones with the yellow footpath sign or the blue bridleway sign, I don’t know why. I would usually describe where the footpath/bridleway takes you to and the views that can be seen whilst walking it amd this usually gets them accepted for me.
I think the metal signs get rejected because they are seen more as “generic”. Although I don’t submit PROW signs like this because I don’t believe they make good wayspots, I do submit long-distance cycle trail markers, e.g. the NCN ones. They suffer from the same problem..
There’s a reason that these metal signs all look alike. Yes, some of them do come out of a big crate in the council’s highways depot but mostly it is that signs on the highway have to meet certain regulations when it comes to design and materials. You can’t just stick any old sign up as a road sign, but once you are off the highway then you can use plastic discs, stickers or anything else.
The other thing is that some reviewers think they are voting on the sign, not the trail - it’s the trail which is important, not the sign.. the sign just shows where the trail is.
great place to exercise and explore, from a horse or on foot
