I agree with this comment, not sure if we agree on acceptance
I have been getting many generic “Public Footpath” signs, usually calling themselves trail markers that just go from 1 street to another. Another common trait is to state where you could get to after you walk the footpath “from there you can continue to trails, beach etc”. These I will Reject.
The other side is where it is part of a trail, having the name on the sign makes it an easy accept.
If no name then submitter should supply the details. With these details I will decide to either Accept or Skip.
I refuse to claim public footpath markers are trails in my own submissions. I do however provide a description of where the path takes you and where you can go from there, so mine would get rejected by you
I expect you are aware of Trails & Markers , which says that the generic public footpath signs are good submissions (provided everything else is OK - location, title, description etc), but am posting it just in case you’re not. Since you appear to be disagreeing with this clarification, it might be better to skip the footpath reviews instead of rejecting them (unless the location, title, description etc deserve a rejection). (no offense intended!)
I submited alot of trail markers. I think it has been over 45 now already within a month. I also review alot of trail markers. For me to accept these markers, the submitter needs to have a clear picture with the route name on it or either provide a link to the route, otherwise I will reject them. I know that might be a bit harsh and strict, but lots of people in my area are now trying to claim random signs, stickers, poles as walking trails. The signs provided in this topic I will skip, since I find them indistinct, but they can be acceptable so I skip to not influence the decision.
I do not see where it states that “Generic” signs are eligible. The only Footpath sign shown as an example is not “Generic” and it states “Although no specific name is provided on the marker above, it is official, permanent, and unique.“
The instant “Rejects” are the sort that as a local example we have a school very close to us, an estate was built at the other side (still commonly known as the “New Estate” although it’s about 45 years ago ). 2 Public Footpaths where added (each side of the school grounds) that just joins the 2 estates, all it does is gives a safe 0.15mile walk instead of .9mile if you didn’t have it.
People will try and nominate as “Public Footpath Trail Marker” and description along the lines of “Trail between AAAA Road and BBBB Road from there you can continue to walking trails, the beach etc”
Reminds me of the episode of “Bottom” where there believe they are going to Bridlington for an holiday until they read “Only 25 minutes from the beach, by car”. They are actually going to Doncaster which is no way considered an holiday destination
I don’t think we’re that far apart on this. By “generic”, I mean PROW markers which are not for a named trail. They might be a simple PROW arrow, they might have one or more destinations listed, there might be multiple arrows pointing in different directions, there might be a bridleway involved as well, but those are all what I call generic - no named trail.
The example in the criteria clarifications is generic on this interpretation.
Those paths that exist solely within housing, from road A to road B are a little dubious. If someone is trying to make out they are more than they are, I feel they are trying it on and will tend to reject.
I use “you can continue to walking trails, the beach etc” for markers into countryside where that footpath joins on to others, forming part of a larger network.
(I’d love to show ways in which Doncaster could be treated as a holiday destination, but I just can’t.)
I figured it was an understanding issue (on my part based on what you had said), as you are solid on pretty much everything you say on the forums, so it makes sense that you take this approach to reviewing trail markers.
Anyway, this bridleway sign appeal rejection was reversed, so maybe this discussion has helped (or at least the earlier parts).
