Edit:
New topic created as it had wandered off the original.
It has started to discuss Public Rights of Way in the UK and their signage.
I don’t usually have issues, no matter where the sign is located ….except where I have made a mistake 
I normally give the official path number and give it a description so it shows how meets exercise/ exploration criteria.
I do feel that using websubmit and showing a screenshot from Rowmaps is helpful - I circle where this is so the reviewer can see the full footpath context easily.
I take my footpaths seriously …perhaps tooo seriously
Personally, I would reject this as “not permanent or distinct” because it is a mass produced sign with nothing to identify that particular location of it.
The sign is not what is being submitted but the route is.
The path/route/trail whichever word works best is the thing that provides exercise and probably exploration.
See example 4
You can verify this is a set public footpath which has a specific number.
2km is certainly good enough for exercise.
I find that mistakes are the best way to learn 
I spend a lot of time learning
But given the picture, etc, there does not seem to be anything to differentiate this from other similar spots. There’s no placename or route name/number or anything. If this is acceptable then every single “bike lane” sign should be too.
Respectfully - the examples in the thread you linked all have exactly what I am saying this one lacks. They’re not the same.
Niantic have accepted my appeal.
These public footpath signs are very specific. It depends on the council as to how much detail is provided on the actual signs but these are the same as these
The bigger one in this topic is often at the start and this other style as you progress. Each is official recorded and legally protected. We have a website that we can check for the exact location and route.
So a nice walk. So certainly meets exercise criteria.
The one circled has same legal status but it looks like it is just a short passageway in housing so so unlike to meet criteria. But if it has been absorbed into a longer walk such as the Dog Rose Walk it might do.
It is up to the submitter to provide enough details,
The one that you highlighted, from recollection, doesn’t have a sign. It just connects 2 residential streets.
I know Public Footpaths with a purpose count, but what about Bridleways like this one? The one shown below goes into Ruislip Woods National Nature Reserve.
Bridleways are footpaths first, that allow horses.
Does that help.
Almost all PROW are equivalent, so this is as valid as if it was a public footpath.
The only possible exception is Byways open to All Traffic, which can be used by vehicles (but not always).
Hmm. Not quite accurate but close enough for this purpose 
public footpath is a path on which the public have a legally protected right to travel on foot
public bridleway is a way over which the public have the right to to travel on foot, to travel on bicycle, and to travel on horseback or leading a horse
A bridleway is not a footpath, it is a different type of PROW.
/pedant
I was under the impression it was horses (and their respective riders) first (under certain circumstances), pedestrians second, and everything else third. But if it’s footpath first… I’ll take it.
It’s all three, but pedestrians have priority, then horse riders, then cyclists.
If it existed, a sign for a trail aimed at horse riders would also be valid, just as signs for trails aimed at cyclists are valid.
You’ve entirely missed my point. Even the new example has exactly the thing I said the original one is missing and you’re insisting it’s the same.
Without saying that all footpath signs are ineligible, because that horse has bolted, can you explain your point?
That this particular sign appears mass produced and has nothing either on it or in the picture (additional signage) to distinguish it in any way. All the examples given have some sort of place name, route name, etc. This one doesn’t.
When I see the words “council” or “grade 2 listed” or something like that, I figure its a UK thing and stop trying to follow or contribute to the conversation. I will never understand why footpaths that cut through private property are eligible, for example, but Niantic agrees with them.
