Additional Information: This milestone is indeed on a road with no pavement, but this does not mean it has no pedestrian access. This stretch of road is on the Sheffield Round Walk (Sheffield Round Walk), which is a locally significant 20 mile trail, and is the only way of continuing that walk between Ladies Spring Wood and Park Bank Wood.
It is also a quiet dead-end road, leading only to one private property, an allotment site and Beauchief Hall. I failed to emphasise this in the original submission. I didnât reference the Sheffield Round Walk as it is a milestone and âon a trailâ does not change whether something is interesting in itself.
Thanks. Makes me realise that Iâm too close to it (metaphorically) and unable to think âwhat evidence would someone who doesnât know the route needâ.
(Which is what is always needed for supporting some wayspots.)
Having public access does not /make/ anything eligible. It does however remove one of the reasons that something might be inelgible. There is a difference.
Milestones are innately eligible as objects for exploration. You may not agree, as you appear to dislike historic objects (?), but it should come down to (1) the photo, title, description (as normal) and (2) pedestrian access.
The Milestone Society is a charity whose sole purpose is to âidentify, record, research, conserve and interpret for public benefit the milestones and other waymarkers of the British Islesâ and there are many people who hunt these down.
I havenât commented on the eligibility of a milestone as I havenât seen the full nomination. I was interested in the status of the lane. Which I would consider safe from the official status.
Many milestones are eligible as they have historic significance ( I submitted one that was locally listed) and can act as significant points of interestâŚthat depends on the individual object.
Unable to see the Milestone on Google Maps using the co-ords provided (might be my bad eyes ).
In regards to traffic, cars definately use this lane (can be seen parked up on maps) but I think its another problem of a grey area in the criteria. Where is the line where no pavement = Not Safe or how many vehicles changes a âLow Traffic Safe Locationâ to âTraffic - Unsafe Locationâ.
We must all have seen the Noticeboard on the corner of a street in a tiny village that gets rejected as there is no path. Itâs a Noticeboard, they are expecting people to walk there to View".
Streetview has never managed to pick this up because itâs half-buried in vegetation and google blur the lower sections of the streetview-car images, which is quite unhelpful here. Thereâs a photosphere just to the east of the road (opposite the dead tree), but you have to drop-and-hope because it doesnât show as a blue circle when you are dragging the pegman around.
I know the area (not the specific location) so I an aware that this lane would be commonly used by walkers.
Suppose it depends on how you interpret âNo Pedestrian Accessâ. Technically this does not have what most would class as âPedestrian Accessâ in a place for walking where you donât have to make way for motor vehicles.
Are reviewers also struggling to find it on StreetView as I did which is why you had to appeal in the 1st place.
Knowing the area I would probably Accept but I can also see why others would reject.
They are a category of object in the UK which almost all reviewers will accept almost every time. As are playgrounds, churches, pubs, murals. For those, you donât have to /justify/ every submission under explore/social/exercise to get them accepted (and some people get very lazy because of this).
(Strangely, stoop stones, which are even more remarkable than milestones, are a harder sell.)
This is why I appealed instead of resubmitting. There are some things which I know will be hard to get past review but I still feel are absolutely legitimate, and I have an expectation that appeal reviewers take more care and are more knowledgeable. (coughThis appeal decision just has me stumped).
I am not saying you are wrong just trying to explain why I think it could be Rejected.
If anybody (even Niantic) takes the âPedestrian Accessâ criteria to mean it must have a path then I can see why it could be Rejected (I did not say âshouldâ ).
I would prefer to see items such as these than lots of the same types. My current bugbear is when you are reviewing and the âAny Duplicatesâ is just all the same âtypeâ of waypoint
In regards to the linked decision I have also answered. Without seeing the original criteria then we canât confirm whether the submitter made it clear that this was someone âImportantâ.
I can see from the top of the road that this is a 30mph zone, I think thatâs normally considered to be safe for a shared pedestrian/vehicle route. Isnât it defined somewhere, I canât find it.
).