Additional Information (if any): Is clearly a roundabout. There is no safe pedestrian access to the fountain. If you see cars parked next to it, they are wrong parked. Those places are not thought to park on them, there are no lines on the floor to park.
Its not even a roundabout. There is no sign and have safe pedestrian access as you see on street view a lot of people walking over the side walk there.
Little bit further you have a real roundabout whit no safe acces or side walk.
@Panjadraakj@Mystogan5097 I would thank if we can let the Staff decide on this topic. There is no safe pedestrian access and here the cars can go fast and can be dangerous. Is not like if it is at a village.
It has a pavement around it, which implies pedestrian access. Furthermore there is a person standing on the pavement in the third picture. In a built-up area like this the speed limit should be 50km/h or lower, so no more dangerous to cross than any other urban street.
Honestly, I donât think it requires any great deliberation, it isnât a roundabout and appears to have safe pedestrian access.
IMO people saying itâs not a roundabout are just picking nits, and missing the meaning. We would call that an âisland in the roadâ, but itâs the same principle as a triangle as a circle.
My understanding is that Niantic doesnât want Wayspots on things like this unless it has an official designated crosswalk (aka zebra stripes) to get there safely. If you must jaywalk (cross the road without a signed path) to get there, Niantic doesnât want that liability.
One day in 2016 (during the couple years when no one could submit wayspots), all portals in roundabouts disappeared - globally. People were in an uproar. Rumor was that someone had been killed crossing the road to get to one (in Africa, as I recall the rumor). Whatever the reason for their removal, it shows that Niantic is very serious about this. Even if people are shown safely in the triangle (or circle).
There is no concept of âjaywalkingâ in Spain or indeed much of the free world where people can cross the road where they like except where it is specifically restricted. In the US, citizens must cross the road only at a crossing or intersection - so much for the âland of the freeâ.
As a specific case, a roundabout is not designed for pedestrian access unless it has a designated crossing, which is sensible. I donât recall ever seeing a roundabout with a pavement/sidewalk unless there has been a designated crossing.
Furthermore - because I am sad an looked it up - according to Article 65 of Spanish traffic laws: generally in Spain motorists have priority over pedestrians except where there is a designated crossing, or specifically when a driver finds pedestrians crossing when turning into another road, even if there is no zebra crossing. So, any pedestrian crossing the road at this point would have priority over any motorists turning onto the road.
Esto es incorrecto. El artĂculo 65 dice que cuando los vehĂculos vayan a girar a una nueva vĂa, y haya cruzando en ella en ese momento unos peatones, aunque no tengan paso para ellos, tendrĂĄn los peatones en este caso prioridad.
En este caso la isleta se encuentra al final de la calle BergantĂn, por lo que los peatones se encuentran cruzando en esta y no en la Avenida de Cantabria. Al venir los coches Ășnicamente desde la calle BergantĂn para incorporarse a la Avenida de Cantabria, los peatones estarĂan cruzando la calle BergantĂn, la cual no es una nueva vĂa y por lo tanto no tienen prioridad.
Ya que nos vamos a acoger a las leyes españolas hay que recordar la ley 124, la cual habla sobre la circulaciĂłn de peatones. En su punto 1 se indica lo siguiente: âEn zonas donde existen pasos para peatones, los que se dispongan a atravesar la calzada deberĂĄn hacerlo precisamente por ellos, sin que puedan efectuarlo por las proximidadesâ. Observando en Maps se puede ver que hay un cruce de peatones a exactamente menos de 15 metros de la isleta, por lo que los peatones estĂĄn obligados a cruzar por ese paso de cebra.
Por otra parte, en el mismo artĂculo, en el punto 4, se establece lo siguiente: âLos peatones no podrĂĄn atravesar las plazas y glorietas por su calzada, por lo que deberĂĄn rodearlasâ. Es decir, el supuesto pavimento seguro alrededor de la fuente no puede ser cruzado segĂșn la ley, ha de ser rodeado y por tanto los peatones estarĂan andando por la carretera.
By this logic it seems you are arguing that New Zealand is not âpedestrian accessibleâ either. Sure, it has walkways and beaches and bollards but first you would have to get your feet wet.
Why would people put in the effort to design and build a simulacrum of a public plaza with fences to keep us away from the plants, paved paths to keep our feet out of the mud, and bollards to separate vehicular traffic from pedestrians, and fail to post the area: âKeep Off, No Trespassingâ if they intend no one to visit it?
Shouldnât they have raised the island by six feet and surrounded it with a wall topped with iron spikes? That would send a clear message.
Thanks for the appeal, @MegaTrainerRed. We took another look at the Wayspot in question and decided that it does not meet our criteria for removal at this time.
From now on, I will update my judgment so that if sidewalks surround a roundabout (or similar place), there is no safety issue even if the sidewalk cannot be reached without crossing the roadway.
