Does a normal wooden footbridge with no clear trail marker considered to be illegable? There’s a few I have seen in the park I visted last week, just wanted to make sure.
Footbridges are not automatic - a case has to be made (just as for lots of things). They are eligible - or more accurately, they are not ineligible - but that doesn’t mean they should be accepted. I’ve seen in the forums a footbridge appeal rejection be overturned to an approval for what was a bridge over a drainage ditch as well as people attempting to describe boardwalks over boggy ground as bridges. It depends a lot on what your footbridges are and how many there are close together.
I don’t know that there’s a definitive clarification on the subject currently, but my reasoning for them is that if they are permanent and allow hikers/walkers to continue on the trail, there’s no reason they shouldn’t be at least considered.
1 Like
Marginal, I tend to vote against them unless they are somehow interesting. A lot of footbridges are just infrastructure, they stop you getting wet feet for example.
I have had unmarked footbridges on named walking trails accepted, but I provided proof that the walking trail went over the bridge. Some footbridges are historically or architecturally interesting. Sometimes know the location of the footbridge can really help with exploration, for example there are a set of river islands not far from me and seeing the bridges in-game is a help.
Depending on the area, footbridges in a park may not be anywhere near anything that could be called a trail.
The one(s) I have seen last week is essentially a footbridge connecting 2 paths over a brook.
Although…. Professor Google says this…
Did you check on OpenStreetMap? Right clicking the footpath will tell you if it’s a named trail (assuming it has been added to OSM)
Also, a link to the trail on OSM at that location would be a good thing to put into supporting text. Or even, with up to 5 supporting photos, a screenshot of the OSM map.
Footbridges on named trails are generally good, even if no trail marker. Doesn’t mean they’ll get accepted. (One rejection that still hurts, especially as the appeal failed, is for a ~100+ year old stone footbridge over a small stream that is on multiple long distance trails.)
1 Like
Oh dang, lucky feller… Wayfarer staff (Not ML) rejected my footbridge over a drainage ditch.
Just for some random context, I just got this to review, admittedly as a bridge not as a footbridge. I’ve posted the streetview image, not the actual submission image.
Not every bridge can be a wayspot (YMMV).
I think it’s unhelpful to get hung up on whether or not it’s a trail and simply does the bridge itself somehow promote or facilitate socializing, exercising, or exploring and is it in some way important to the community?
Some things I’d consider:
-
It provides critical access to the park or is the only access point
-
A creek running under it where you might play
-
Offers a rather nice view of the area
-
Itself is somehow especially photogenic
I like to bring up the below text any time bridges are discussed. Several times, the topic of bridges has come up on criteria pages and even AMAs. This message was once published criteria but was silently removed during one of their criteria purges. The content content is still useful in deciding eligibility, though, and in my opinion “footbridge” can be replaced with any object and the stance fits perfectly with criteria.
What types of bridges are and aren’t eligible?
In general, think about the specific bridge and whether it’s a clear and differentiable location for other players to find. Also, if a location is somehow important to the community, it would also be a good candidate. Our guidance for most locations is whether a location, structure, piece of art, etc. is important for exploration, promotes exercise or facilitates social connections. With regard to bridges generally, if it is accessible by foot and expected to be used as part of a named path or trail, it would meet criteria. Bridges that primarily serve cars and don’t have pedestrian access are not eligible.
The “expected to be used as part of a named path or trail” is simply an example, not the only way a bridge may be eligible. Locally, I also know of some trail bridges to be social points - where pedestrians and cyclists use as a focal point to meet and often take breaks to socialize.
4 Likes
A special case in the UK is bridges over canals. It doesn’t matter what the bridge carries or whether there is a named trail - all that matters is that towpath goes under the bridge.
Fairly similar to our postboxes 
1 Like
Apologies, I (incorrectly) assumed “trail” from the context (thinking back to some local situations) but would personally apply the same reasoning to “path” and have nominated multiple of this kind.
1 Like
Abandoned the trip to the park because of the lovely dull weather. But found a couple of other nominations instead.
2 Likes