Hey, everyone! I thought it may be worthwhile to start a specific thread where the community could discuss what makes a footbridge eligible versus ineligible, in their opinion.
For me, I always look at street view and the surrounding area to determine if the footbridge is the thing that makes further exploration possible (like if it connects two areas of a park and it could be unsafe or difficult to make the cross without it). Even if a footbridge is very pretty, if it doesn’t have a great backstory, or is basically just a boardwalk, I usually tend to reject.
What do you all think? Is there something in particular you look for to accept or reject?
Oh, that’s an interesting phrase. I have approved quite a few boardwalks built in nature reserves to keep people walking on one particular route, keep them above the local flora/fauna, and keep them off the ground that often floods. In those cases, I think those boardwalks have been built for the express purpose of promoting exploration.
I love footbridges that make it possible to follow a trail. Those are easy. I also love destination footbridges that are beautiful or meaningful.
I don’t love a plank across a ditch you could just as easily step over that does not make the area more passable in a meaningful way. Especially if that plank looks temporary.
I won’t mention the 3 footbridges I recently submitted, 2 of which were rejected by the community and approved on appeal. I refuse to mention it… I shan’t!!
True, one plank is not my favorite. But I hesitate to think it terms of “you could step over” because of my work in the community of people who rely on wheelchairs for mobility. I definitely try to analyze whether “the planks(s)” could handle the weight of a wheelchair and if the wheelchair user would be able to get beyond this point any other way.
IMO, most footbridges are just infrastructure, a way to stop your feet getting wet. Just because they allow you to get somewhere doesn’t make them a valid wayspot.
They can be a good wayspot if they form part of a walking trail (especially if there’s a trail marker) or they are historically or architecturally interesting.
When I read your discussions about footbridges, I have a little question. Anyone who understands the Wayspot criteria would say that a normal bridge without any eligibility criteria is not a suitable Wayspot, so why are some people being a little lenient about footbridges?
NianticGiffard’s post on June 2021 Hi there! If there is anything interesting/historic about the bridge or maybe if the bridge is architecturally unique, it is eligible.
I’m notoriously fussy about the footbridges I submit - mine are along named trails, generally with support beams or handrails or other evidence of purposeful construction. I know of many spots along trails nearby that have a few boards or pre-assembled board sections placed along the ground to protect the feet of pedestrians from intermittent damp conditions, but I don’t consider those permanent or truly eligible, so I tend to reject them when I see them in review. Boardwalk trails are cool, of course, but where does one place the pin? If the pin is placed at the logical point of entrance, does that mean a linear boardwalk would have at least two Wayspots?
This one, I thought looked picturesque, especially in comparison to the first one. It’s more than a basic “few planks” over the river and led to some trails.
Often, people mention footbridges being used as part of trails. I much prefer if the footbridge has a trailmarker on like the below:
Feel free to disagree with me or offer other views but I wanted to share a few images.
Personally I wouldn’t look at 99% of footbridges and think “yes, that meets Wayfarer criteria” but things may be different where you’re from, or there is a way it meets criteria to you.
and some of my bike/pedestrian trails do have photospheres.
it’s a little early for me and I’d love to see the community vibe, first.
NianticGiffard’s post on June 2021
