By the quality of the description.
The romanticising of public footpaths in that video is interesting 
I didnât intend to have a discussion about the merits or not of public footpaths but a general trend Iâm seeing on how they are submitted, going through the system and moving towards being part of the acceptable without much thought meta:)
Yes itâs a bit âoverâ in some sequences, but some interesting facts I also heard.
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.
The discs are often generic mass produced items but I donât think that should detractt from trail markers as great Wayspots.
Iâm not submitting the disc itself but what you can see and where you can go 
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 âlegal pathsâ in England and Wales donât always have the same protection in Scotland with private landowners often challenging those rights.
Iâm not sure about NI
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)
Itâs just a footpath marker, thereâs no evidence there is a named trail. Footpath markers are very common, i.e. not distinct. Theyâre 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. Youâd 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 âFrom 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 churchâ. The marker may be described as being on the stile at the start if the path. It doesnât 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 donât 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 wouldnât assume every time itâs called a trail when it isnât is abuse. Iâm 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 âpublic footpathâ signs were just that! Your post had educated me, and I feel bad that Iâve been guilty of some nominations for âtrail markersâ that it now seems shouldnât have been called that. It wouldnât surprise me if thereâs a lot more submitters who have done the same thing!
I would say though, Iâd 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 theyâre 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 donât but it is a common theme Iâm seeing in reviews to try and get away from calling it a public footpath for the reasons you said.
Realistically thereâs one group of people who could fix it and itâs not the reviewers or the submitters
If you havenât checked out the LDWA - https://ldwa.org.uk/ - then I would recommend it. You might find a number of trails in your local area that you didnât know about.
For example, this is one of my local trails with a high number markers: John Bunyan Trail - LDWA Long Distance Paths
Hereâs 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 doesnât have photo images, it does usually have excellent footpath dataâŚ
Right-clicking the the location and selecting âQuery Featuresâ 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 âCRâ) 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 âdistinctâ as theyâre generic markers, with no named trail?
I think the onus is on them to convince you that a public footpath marker would be a good addition.
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.
Yeah if they do that great. A lot of them are based on âroutesâ â pathsâ 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 donât think there is a yes/no answer that can be applied to every prow
Yes it is. Itâs 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 itâs genuine or exists.
Itâs if a restaurant for example and it has itâs 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 wouldnât lol.
Itâs 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 donât 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 âright to roamâ 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. 
Itâs been stated a good while back that official footpath markers are acceptable not just named trails - people need to move on from the âjust named trailsâ 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.
Niantics even used my friendâs nomination as an example. It gave him a big head it was a marker similar to the one you have shown.
This is an example of one I would be happy to accept.
My general policy is to accept these so long as they:
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 isnât) on the basis that you often have to pick the nearest equivalent on their list.
Sorry I was being an 1diot and didnât realise what you were asking.
Thanks @PeteC303 for answering
Thatâs pretty vague. There are dozens and dozens of different PROWs across fields in my area, with probably hundreds of markers. Doesnât seem like Niantic really want all those in the game.
Seems like they do given Iâve had many accepted by AI and in house review. I donât 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.
