How do you vote on these?

By the quality of the description.

The romanticising of public footpaths in that video is interesting :joy:

I didn’t intend to have a discussion about the merits or not of public footpaths but a general trend I’m seeing on how they are submitted, going through the system and moving towards being part of the acceptable without much thought meta:)

1 Like

Yes it’s a bit “over” in some sequences, but some interesting facts I also heard.

  1. This is really mass product
  2. It’s not unsual that they bring you over private property

I also found a website with an articel about british footpaths. She shows picture of the adventure part (yeah explore). When you have to go through bushes or climb over fences to follow the footpath.

1 Like

The discs are often generic mass produced items but I don’t think that should detractt from trail markers as great Wayspots.

I’m not submitting the disc itself but what you can see and where you can go :slight_smile:

For England and Wales the public footpath is the legal right to use the path over, through the private property.

Scotland has different laws.

The Right to Roam act in Scotland is not always as great as it sounds as it means the ‘legal paths’ in England and Wales don’t always have the same protection in Scotland with private landowners often challenging those rights.

I’m not sure about NI :slight_smile:

1 Like

Yeah a public footpath cross someones land is still a public footpath, so personally I dont see any issue about private property with these. As long as you stay on the footpath you are perfectly legally allowed to cross their property (England)

1 Like

It’s just a footpath marker, there’s no evidence there is a named trail. Footpath markers are very common, i.e. not distinct. They’re often just shortcuts between two places, not really somewhere to explore.

Sometimes these markers can be found on a named walking trail where named trail markers are missing. You’d want to back that up with some evidence from a reliable external source (e.g. LDWA in the UK, a local authority website etc).


This is how I personally see it and my approach to submitting.
Its the path that is interesting and the route you might explore. I often go into the Cheshire countryside and follow a random sequence of PROW. They are in some ways better than the bigger routes as you often dont have to fight your way through hoards of people ( the odd nettle maybe) and you find interesting things. I once came across a sequence of large structures for making music that I had no idea was there.
The important part is that the person submitting does not pretend it is something it is not, but does describe what would be interesting if you followed this path “From Little Trailton through the crop field and down to the wooded area where you will find some derelict machinery from an old pumping station. From there the path takes you to Trailton Major and its mid 19th century church”. The marker may be described as being on the stile at the start if the path. It doesn’t matter a lot what the marker looks like as long as it marks that point on the the trail.
By contrast a footpath which is an alleyway between 2 streets is going to be harder to describe.
I don’t see anything wrong with there being a lot. Why would you want to restrict the opportunity for exercise and exploration across countryside?
Thats my personal opinion.


@26thDoctor I wouldn’t assume every time it’s called a trail when it isn’t is abuse. I’m really new to going out and following these signs. Hand on heart, I genuinely thought all of the arrows were trail markers, and just the green “public footpath” signs were just that! Your post had educated me, and I feel bad that I’ve been guilty of some nominations for “trail markers” that it now seems shouldn’t have been called that. It wouldn’t surprise me if there’s a lot more submitters who have done the same thing!

I would say though, I’d be concerned that if I named it public footpath marker (and then it it in the info why) it would get rejected just on those grounds. As a reviewer, I thought I had read public footpaths are not to be accepted as they’re generic signs - but trail markers are fine. So this could also explain people erring on the side of caution in calling it that, because in their head it is guiding you along a route!

My point is, it may not be intended abuse - it may simply be ignorance to the difference! And some may be they think the words are interchangeable.


I definitely don’t but it is a common theme I’m seeing in reviews to try and get away from calling it a public footpath for the reasons you said.

Realistically there’s one group of people who could fix it and it’s not the reviewers or the submitters :slight_smile:


If you haven’t checked out the LDWA - - then I would recommend it. You might find a number of trails in your local area that you didn’t know about.

For example, this is one of my local trails with a high number markers: John Bunyan Trail - LDWA Long Distance Paths

Here’s one with no less than four named trails on it as an example.

The gold standard to show that the marker exists is a photosphere or StreetView. But you can add any other service in the support text such as a link to Bing Streetside. One thing I find particularly useful is OpenStreetMap - although this doesn’t have photo images, it does usually have excellent footpath data…

Right-clicking the the location and selecting “Query Features” will show you the trails that have been added into OSM. You can then compare it with the submitted location, and check to see if the trail actually goes through the spot that is claimed.

Not all routes are in the LDWA, for example local circular routes (usually marked with “CR”) are generally eligible or other very short named walks. It always helps to add whatever citations you can find, such as local government sites, parish councils etc.


So how about this one? It just came up for review. Surely these should be rejected under ‘distinct’ as they’re generic markers, with no named trail?

1 Like

I think the onus is on them to convince you that a public footpath marker would be a good addition.

1 Like

Just found this clarification post. Specifically,

The supporting photo and website of the route will help verify this rural location.

This says to me there must be an actual route there, not just a general PROW.

1 Like

Yeah if they do that great. A lot of them are based on ‘routes’ ’ paths’ that people have been using for hundreds of years that connected towns, a lot of them are worthy of being official trails in their own rights, a lot of them are a shortcut to Asda or an alleyway between suburban houses.

I don’t think there is a yes/no answer that can be applied to every prow :slight_smile:


Yes it is. It’s done by Niantics so you can check it out on google. I take it you mean the arrow?? Have you never clicked on the title when reviewing? It takes you to a google search so you can find if it’s genuine or exists.

It’s if a restaurant for example and it has it’s own website you should be able to find the official website for the restaurant and weather it remains open etc.

Or this example it would take you to a website detailing the trail. But since they made the trail name up it wouldn’t lol.

It’s a public footpath and not a named trail however I have submitted plenty of these in my area and they get accepted by both the AI and the community, whilst some more urban footpaths don’t necessarily lead anywhere interesting I often submit ones in the countryside that actually lead to somewhere interesting with views etc.

They are acceptable if people stop making stuff up. If they actually did some research of the area they would be able to find the public rights of way maps on their local council website and they could used its official number in the title and description like I do.

These public rights of way in the UK been fought for under the “right to roam” and have been well trodden paths used by our ancestors and if players keep them open by playing the games there then brilliant because many public footpaths are being closed or poorly maintained. Anyone submitting these who come across an obstructed footpath should report it to their local council for it to be opened up for others to use. Exercise and exploring criteria met. :slightly_smiling_face:

It’s been stated a good while back that official footpath markers are acceptable not just named trails - people need to move on from the “just named trails” mindset. However they still should be reviewed on their own merits.

Does it lead somewhere interesting. Has the submitter demonstrated this or is it just a footpath leading between a row of houses or does it take you into the countryside for some fresh air and exercise. :slightly_smiling_face:

Niantics even used my friend’s nomination as an example. It gave him a big head :joy: it was a marker similar to the one you have shown.

1 Like

This is an example of one I would be happy to accept.

My general policy is to accept these so long as they:

  • Are honest about what it is
  • Have a unique title
  • Say something that isn’t completely redundant in the description

In these cases I upvote this as a place to exercise and a place to explore.
I also tag it as a trail marker (even though it technically isn’t) on the basis that you often have to pick the nearest equivalent on their list.


Sorry I was being an 1diot and didn’t realise what you were asking.

Thanks @PeteC303 for answering :slight_smile:

1 Like

That’s pretty vague. There are dozens and dozens of different PROWs across fields in my area, with probably hundreds of markers. Doesn’t seem like Niantic really want all those in the game.

1 Like

Seems like they do :joy: given I’ve had many accepted by AI and in house review. I don’t just submit every one I see. I pick ones that are genuinely interesting to go and explore.


PROW are very varied. Having a lot of them across the countryside is a great situation. Remember it is the route that is the interesting thing, and following a route is what exploring is all about along with what you might find or where it takes you.
So it comes down to the description of the PROW has the route been made clear and interesting.

This path is clear on satelitte view and affords great views of the surrounding countryside away from busy roads and a more direct route between Trevone and Padstow. It was the old route linking the villages and Prideaux Place.
I think that is a good path to explore and exercise. There are a few Markers to keep you on track.
Surely just the sort of thing that should be in a database to enable exploration?