Morning all.
I have a question about bike/running route signage.
I’m not planning on appealing mine from a while back, but i wondered about in terms of reviewing this type of thing.
So i submitted a running route marker (it is in sticker form, and they have been in place since i moved to the area circa 2010) the nomination was rejected as it doubted it’s permanency… Which being a sticker I can understand.
However I came across a cycle lane nomination, in which the marker attached to the lamppost is a sticker, however I noticed nearby were several other approved route signs… Also in sticker form (image attached of one such wayspot)
My question is how do I review these, as the approved ones and my submitted one have conflicting feedback (just point out these are from a different area to where I submitted)
Many thanks
Rux
Hello @Ruxpin64
With all trailmarkers the key is that it is the route that is eligible, not the marker.
The marker has a function to direct people along a route especially at decision points. It does not mater what that material is made of.
The critical points to consider is there an official website to show the route of the trail so that the trail can be verified.
If a link isn’t provided for a trail such as the one illustrated I would reject.
If it is a public footpath then using a resource such as Rowmaps or local authority records can verify ( separate websites in Scotland).
Again if it is not a PROW then reject.
The NCN routes can also be verified.
You do need to take care tgat what you are presented with is not a directional marker towards where the route is.
I have a trail I am currently submitting and I am using my judgement over which stickers are actually distinctive enough when not at a decision point.
Does that help? Or is there something else needing discussion.
Always check that the route actually exists. Particularly with stickers like this, it is too easy for someone to print up a sticker and then submit it as a wayspot without the route existing.
Other threads on this forum have shown that people can put a fair amount of effort into creating fake trail markers.
A link not being provided could just be the submitter not realising what would be helpful and I wouldn’t reject just because no link is provided. However, if a google search (e.g. “The Keynsham Trail”) draws a blank or only non-definitive websites, it’s a rejection.
Definitive - e.g., OSM, sustrans, LDWA, Walking Englishman, rowmaps.com
Non-definitive - alltrails and anything else where anyone can submit any route for anything
No that clears up a lot of it.
But the key issue I had was the reason my marker, which was a directional marker for a running route (which I think has a website with the route as it’s a Somerset council thing) and also has one near by wayspot which is a sign, that is a map of the route in the park. Wasn’t rejected on the grounds that it wasn’t a recognised route, but that it was a sticker rather than a more substantial sign. (Reason was not permanent)
But perhaps that may change if I had given more evidence of said route. May try submitting again at some point with a link to the route etc… so most likely it was a me thing (was one of my first few nominations)
Thanks for all the info. Very much appreciated
Ruxpin.
Trail markers sometimes get rejected without any obvious reason, but just because some reviewers don’t like trail markers. Rarely for not being permanent even though that’s what the rejection looks like.
The rejection reason “not permanent and distinct” comes up in three situations:
* reviewers did not think the object is permanent
* reviewers did not think the object is distinct
* reviewers did not think the object meets any criteria (exercise, explore, social) and wanted to explicitly reject it, so reject for not “permanent and distinct” because that is the advice from Niantic
It would help if you could share your rejected nomination and/or screenshots of the review you saw.
Generally speaking a sticker trail marker is to be treated no differently than a metal or wooden one, ie it can be accepted as long as it represents a real trail accurately and is an official marker.
Submissions ideally give evidence for the trail with a link to the route, or details should be able to be found with a quick search.
I’ve just gone back and looked at the nomination info I gave (it was a little while ago, when I had started submitting) and it’s blatantly is partly my information… Or lack of.
However I have the site (council one and link, route, details about the 321 initiative) so I could re-submit later, and track down the remaining markers along the route.
And if I did I would probably take a clear photo of the current big metal sign with the route on it (at the start) as it that’s already a wayspot, and supports that it actually is an actual permanent route
Obviously there was a clear picture of the area etc…
Rux
Ah the run England ones.
If you don’t use appeals very often you could use an appeal and put the info and link in the appeal notes.
Or do a fresh submission.
Yeah, I… Assumed obviously incorrectly it was because of the material of the signage.
Obviously my assumption is incorrect, and it’s just my early poor write ups 
I know that a couple of the other locations around the other parks that have these are there as spots, however they have actually little plaques (which also led me to my conclusion)
I will try and appeal with supporting info and see what shakes 
Thanks all
Just as an update,
Thanks to you guys appeal accepted 
Now I can go hunt down the rest of the route!
Thanks
Ruxpin
