- Permanent / Not Distinct - an official sign has been used as a placemarker; evidence of the formal designation map added to supporting photos; Supplemental Information explains that this is the only designation in Abingdon; and links provided to the RVNR section of the Oxfordshire County Council website in Supplemental Information.
- Unsafe / Not Accessible - supporting photos show the footpath and cycle path decribed in the Supplemental Information next to the nomination; footpath and cycle lane also clearly visible on google aerial photography and streetview.
I am not sure what the reviewers are seeing / not seeing here?
"not permanent and distinct means one of:
- reviewers did not think the object is permanent
- reviewers did not think the object is distinct
- reviewers did not think the object meets any criteria (exercise, explore, social) and wanted to explicitly reject it, so reject for not âpermanent and distinctâ because that is the advice from Niantic
Regarding pedestrian access, the path you are describing at the side of the road is part of the roadway itself and is therefore explicitly unsafe. The grass verge might be safe to stand on, but access is a potential issue.
These nature reserve signs are borderline submissions; I personally skip them in review, but I can understand people wanting to reject them.
I would have said this is not safe access. I am sure itâs designed to be accessed, but without a pavement, itâs seems unsafe.
@P1dg3ySlayer We both interpreted the images the same, but incorrectly.
There is actually a pavement here!
Safe access is not an issue and is an incorrect rejection, but I still suspect this stems from reviewers wanting to reject.
It is my understanding that this is on a pedestrian / cycle route that is separated from vehicular traffic and has a white line to divide cyclists from pedestrians. Hereâs the closest signage at the bus stop to the east:
EDIT: Just saw your follow-up replys. Thought I was going mad considering I walked to it and didnât feel at all unsafe!
In that case, It may be down to it just being a sign.
Youâre damned if you do (community: âreject - sign isnât permanent or distinct not a great place to exploreâ) and youâre damned if you donât (ML: âreject - no placemarker signâ).
I drove past these last week, would not say they had pedestrian access in this particular location. I did notice them and like the idea. Maybe find another location where this scheme is going on that isnât basically a motorway junction
Oh wait I see theyre on both sides, in which case should be fine.
I am also one that would not nominate these and will skip if found in Review.
There are all over in the local area which I interpret as âNot Distinctâ I have also noticed that the local council remove these at the end of the summer so âTemporaryâ.
Definitely a grey area for criteria so I understand when people Accept and those that Reject.
The pedestrian / cycle route continues all the way to Marcham, which is the next village to the west of Abingdon and is designed to allow pedestrians and cyclists to cross the junction at specific points. The route was upgraded in 2025. If you lived in or were visiting Abingdon you wouldnât need to navigate the junction to be able to reach the nomination, though, as youâd be coming from the other direction. This is the view from under the flyover with the nomination ahead:
Yeah I saw the ones on the right when driving and also was like âoh thats cool but canât nominate anything over thereâ. Youâre saying theyâre on the left too, which is accessible
Earliest I can see that this was in place was May 2025, the map I extracted was from a report in December 2025 and still there now, so certainly wasnât removed out of season.
Correct - there are four sections in the middle of the roundabout, which are not accessible and this section, which is.
I wonder if people made that same mistake when reviewing that I made driving through then?
A - I can refer to the designation being there in May 2025 and report being from December 2025 (so now at least in second season) and add a bit more to explain why this particular verge has ecological qualities.
B - I can provide a supplemental photo clearly showing the pedestrian / cycle access.
They are a borderline submission. Some rejections should be expected. Thereâs no damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-donât here, just a borderline submission.
Itâs a bit like submitting a neighbourhood entry sign in the US and complaining when it gets rejected.
Over here they are all year round. Normally put in place by community/conservation groups with agreement from the council. I think we have one of them on the outskirts of town that has been there so long the sign had to be replaced because of weather fading.
From reading the December 2025 report, the current signs were installed in 2024, replacing earlier marker posts and are intended to be permanent:
Itâs also quite a high bar for a site to become undesignated:
From what I have read, it appears that the RVNRs have a higher ecological value than the local âLet it Beeâ Meadow Areas. The former have been designated due to already being species-rich, and the latter are areas where the council is not mowing as often to try and increase biodiversity. Itâs really the location of the RVNR thatâs off-putting for reviewers being next to a main road and junction, whereas the LIBs are in more inviting locations, mostly parks and recreation areas or verges next to residential streets.
The discussion in here has been really helpful in enabling me to resubmit the nomination as follows:
Iâd like to make some text edit suggestions since it is in queue.
The focus here needs to be on why this is exploration worthy, and you need to be clear about that and not leave it to be implied.
Description:
A 100m strip of limestone grassland that has been selected to be part of the RNVR scheme. This special habitat is being managed and protected as part of local biodiversity projects. Stop and have a look to see how many different plant and insect species you can find. What you will see will change with the seasons.
What I have written is around what a person would gain by exploring this location and hence meeting criteria - it is active rather than passive.
Supplementary Information needs to be shorter.
I like the links to the website to prove that itâs official. Small protected areas help pollinators spread. You could weave orchids into the description but otherwise not needed in this section. No need for details about the management of the area âŚ..you are providing that via links.
Leave out the part about other RNVR and keep the focus on this one.
It provides a learning opportunity as you walk along looking at the biodiversity. There is a footpath as well as a cycle lane.
That is all that is needed.
Fight the temptation to talk about other things and stay focussed on this location. 
