Close
That strip of land is narrow and I can understand it being seen as not safe for pedestrians without stepping into the road.
Sometimes, cycle trail markers are not in safe positions for pedestrians, because they are not targeted at pedestrians. Despite meeting the Exercise criteria, they can fail on pedestrian accessibility.
I wouldn’t expect people to be walking on the grass - meaning there is no safe access. It’s irrelevant that you could reach from a path across the road, or a stretch of grass that hasn’t been designated a public footpath.
I use the “would I want my kids to try to access itl as a safety test - and there’s no way I would want them walking over there.
A stretch of grass is not a path for walking on.
It can be. I agree this isn’t the case here though.
Hi,
I live at 50 meters of that spot. I have 2 kids, 5 and 10 years old. So no would and should here, also not somebody evaluating the stops that is totally not local, let alone from the same country!
There is hardly any traffic in my street, and yes, my kids and I walk on that grass strip because law states that you walk on the side of the road were you see the cars coming towards you if there are any. If I would follow your reasoning, i would have to stay indoors or move only by car because outside my front door is not safe … kind of rediculous right? I genuinely think that some common sense would be appropriate … but again how i gods name is it possible to make a funded decision from god know how many miles away, behind a computer. Instead my kids will be dissapointed that half of the activities in our neighbourghood are gone. Will they stop going for a walk of a bike ride … no, because with or without a gym or pokestop, this area is as safe as it can be for children.
Kind regards, Drewiezord … a real parent, with real kids, actually living in that area.
Mod edit to remove unnecessary remarks.
Hello and welcome @Drewiezord
It’s great that you can weigh in as a local wayfarer on this discussion! But please remember the rules of the forum that comments should be constructive and not targeted at any specific user(s).
1 Like
I doubt there is anywhere where you have to ignore a pavement where one exists, and instead walk on a grass strip on the other side of the road, in order to face incoming traffic.
Hi @Mathias8650
I did edit out a direct mention of another user. That is why I left the mod note.
I am happy to have people discuss eligibility and how it applies to their local area. I am also happy to leave comments when folks are frustrated and venting (as above).
5 Likes
What happens where there is a pavement on 1 side but no where to walk on the other. Are you seriously stating that the law states that you should walk on the road even if there is a pavement on the opposite side?
Not local but I have only heard the “facing on-coming traffic” as a recommendation and only when there is no safe walking area such as a pavement (ie you must walk in the road)…
If there is a pavement, the law does allow you to walk there, so the law does not say you have to walk facing traffic. Common practise is that outside city limits that is what you do, if pavements are missing.
However, I feel this is besides the point, a grass walking path is safe, there are many places where you don’t even have the choice. The fact that your shoes may get dirty, does not make in unsafe.
You are allowed to walk there, and it is safe enough.
1 Like
I was not discussing this nomination itself, I was discussing the “law” statement.
The nomination clearly shows an hard surface “pavement” on 1 side and a grass verge on the other. The majority of people are going to walk on the pavement side no matter which way they are heading so the “law” statement is what is “beside the point” as if would not be correct in these circumstances.
Agree, that is what most people do, but I still think that this does not make it unsafe to walk on the grass.
1 Like
Bit aggressive reply considering I was only replying to the original poster trying to give a point of view as to why it might have been rejected. You also have no idea where I am from, and you may well be right that I’m from a completely different country - but the people reviewing it should have been “local” (bear in mind that for Wayfarer, local can be several hundred km/miles away). If I saw a nomination like that in my area, I would want to see additional photos that proved there is safe pedestrian access. The comment about the kids, I meant that I would not want small kids crossing a road on their own or with friends to walk on a patch of grass like that, when a pavement is available.
I didn’t see whatever your personal comment was, but presume it was to me given the rest of your vitriol was aimed at me for reasons I’m still unclear on. The whole point of this forum is for other users to give advice on what makes a nomination more likely to get accepted, if to help someone understand why it has been rejected. Given that I have had several hundred nominations accepted, I like to think that I’ve got a reasonable idea of what I’m doing, and simply tried to use that experience to help the OP. My wayfarer rating is “great” suggesting I tend to vote the same way as the majority of other people, so if I’m thinking a nomination isn’t great the chances are I’m not alone.
1 Like