close
Trail markers like these should be valid, I agree, but these two in particular do seem to have pedestrian access issues. There doesn’t seem to be a footpath or sidewalk near them.
2 Likes
Safety is the second question you are asked when reviewing a wayspot candidate. This is because the safety criterium trumps any eligibility criterium. You should be able to get to the exact location of the object without putting yourself in danger. Both examples shown there do not have a pedestrian walkway leading up to the candidate. The second one, is very similar to a roundabout. If there was a pedestrian walkway going to that roundabout it would indeed be an eligible wayspot.
So yes, there are likely other existing wayspots with such issues, but definitely not all wayspots are suffering from this. Bike trail marker are more often in locations that are not safe for pedestrians, as these are not designed for pedestrians.
Thanks for the appeal, @Mathias8650 We have taken another look, but stand by our decision to retire the Wayspots in question.
Your question has been answered twice.
They aren’t safe for pedestrians.
This is why. It’s designed for vehicles, not people.
It’s still a road designed for vehicles to drive on, I understand why the signs are there but they are irrelevant. Wayspots need safe pedestrian access that is dedicated to pedestrians, such as a cross walk or a sidewalk. There are neither of those at those markers, therefore when it comes to Wayfarer they are unsafe.
I understand your frustration with these, but that’s very likely the reason they were removed, and will remain removed.
A maximum speed of 30kmh means that drivers have more time to react when there is something in their path, such as a child. The beware of children signs are to make them more aware that there might be a child in the road.
Neither of these things mean that it is safe to stand at that spot staring at your phone, which is what the pedestrian access requirement is about.
1 Like