Hi,
I have been struggling to get a couple of footbridges nominated. The first nominations both made it into community voting and after just over a week were eventually rejected due to “Temporary/Seasonal or Not Distinct” and the Stonehill one also due to “Low Quality Photo”. I assumed the issue was with ‘not distinct’ rather than ‘temporary’, as they are clearly permanent structures.
Having regard to the advice on this thread: Help understanding pokestop rejection I took new photos and updated the title, description and supporting information text before resubmitting. The nominations were both rejected the next day by the community (not “our team”) for the same temporary/distinct reason, before I had even noticed they had gone in voting.
It seems odd to me that the initial nominations were given careful consideration, but the second nominations, which I thought I had improved them, were batted away so quickly. Is this a deliberate process intended to deter explorers from making repeat submissions immediately after rejection?
I have been trying to frame the nominations to explain that importance of the bridges isn’t the structure itself, but the connection it provides to facilitate exercise and exploration. I have attached full details of the second nominations below and so would be grateful for any suggestions to improve them further. I got another wooden footbridge accepted, but it was over a larger watercourse than the two below, so it has a shape similar to a footbridge over a road and is a larger and more distinctive structure. However, I have seen similar fairly nondescript footbridges to those below accepted and appear as pokestops in this area in recent months.
Summer Fields:
Stonehill:
I hope that is sufficient information, but happy to provide more if that would help.
Cheers,
L15
I think I did see the first one…
IMO, these are not distinct. They are merely a way to cross a ditch or stream, and they don’t meet any of the criteria of socializing, exercise or exploration. This last one is probably the contentious point, but it’s not a point of interest to visit in its own right and otherwise it is merely there to stop your feet getting wet.
Some bridges have architectural or historical interest in their own right, or have names (designated by a plaque perhaps), or have a trail marker attached. I’d argue that these have none of those features.
3 Likes
I would go again. Reality is footbridges are accepted globally. So it may just be your local community.
Shritwood is right. These are probably blocked for the distinct component. But that arguement could be made for trail marker stickers, metal direction signs and numerous other objects yet they make it. Often accepted for other criteria but were they distinct. I think not.
You could start your supporting text as place to explore. Suggesting it is a waypoints on local footpaths. If your local recreation areas/woodland/reserve/park have no signs you can use it as a waypoint to anchor the nomination for the recreation area. You can even suggest the footbridges act as markers on the footpaths if there is no other signage. IF there are links for the footpaths/recreation/park include those.
I would go again. Work the photos. Then post in nomination improvements as ask for help on improving - I always submit later then edit at home - but you need to nail the images as you cannot change those. I find that helps in giving time to dig up the supporting info links etc
Good luck
Thank you both for your replies.
I live near the Stonehill footbridge and if that disappeared it would make a circular walk of approximately 2 km no longer possible. The walk does not have any formal name or means of identfication other than being a clearly made out path. It includes an area of woodland, where there are some (albeit generic) picnic tables, a BMX track, fishing lakes, football and rugby pitches and provides access to some allotments and Route 5 of the National Cycle Network. It also passes a sewage works, but less said about that!
I can categorically say that if the bridge wasn’t there then it would diminish the quality of life for many members of the local community by making access to the aforementioned areas more difficult, because otherwise you’d have to go on a big detour to reach them and then the only way to return would be to double back on yourself.
I used to live near the Summer Fields footbridge and it would be a similar storey if that bridge was to disappear. It would cut off easy access to Boreford Road Recreation Area from the west. Also, rather than having an attractive pedestrian route to the local facilities at Peachcroft you’d have to walk much further out of your way to the south along suburban roads to the next crossing point and then double back on yourself. Anyone on the east side of the bridge would also have a similar detour in order to reach the bus stops on Oxford Road, rather than the direct route that the bridge provides.
I those ways I feel that the footbridges contribute towards exercise and exploration by being an integral part of the respective local public footpath networks. The removal of the bridges would diminish the likelihood of those routes/areas being explored and used for exercise. The challenge is how to translate that into a wayspot.
I always write my nominations at home, usually on my laptop first, so that I just upload the photos and a few words via the app and then use the edit function to paste in the full text.
Cheers,
L15
Well, yes, but you could say the same for the tarmac that makes up the footpath itself or indeed any right of way. That doesn’t make it eligible. If it’s part of a walking trail then maybe but you should provide evidence that such a trail exists… trail markers are best, sometimes the trails are not marked but are documented online.
1 Like
The first one is on a modern route through the housing estate
It shows as a red dotted line.
So it’s going to be a very difficult one to make a case for. There are public footpaths (PROW) nearby.
The second one is more promising
It appears to be that the footbridge is part of a PROW - a named route
These maps are from
http://www.rowmaps.com/
Clicking on the red line brings up further details
As you can see this looks like the type of trail that is going to allow exercise and exploration.
So use the info in the description and I don’t think it’s great to describe it as being over a ditch just leave that out.
4 Likes
This one took me 10 tries plus I know others submitted it too. Gos Brook is not much more than a ditch itself, I think its the smallest official waterway in the area and goes dry in the summer. It’s important though, draining the floodplain and protecting homes
If you believe in its importance, then dont be discouraged from a couple of rejections
Try to take the pictures from the best angles - how do they look from the side? I got quite stung taking these pictures from memory, albeit that might have been one of the other times 
And like Eli said the route can really help “sell” it too so highlight that in the nomination
2 Likes
Thank you for your reply.
I think you are right about Stonehill being the stronger nomination of the two. I am grateful for the PROW link. I was aware of it, but the database I have access to isn’t web-based or publicly available so I couldn’t link to it. I shall try resubmitting that one first taking account of the various suggestions and see how it goes.
I don’t believe all is lost with Summer Fields, however. It depends on the interpretation of “modern”, but the bridge and routes it serves have been there since the late 1970s / early 1980s. I have also discovered that it is part of an adopted highway, allowing pedestrian access to the Peachcroft services and facilities - ArcGIS Web Application
This demonstrates that it is maintained by OCC (whom are also responsible for the upkeep of PROWs in their area) and is unlikely to be removed. It also shows that there was an intention from the outset when the residential development was planned to provide a connection between the residential areas on the east and west sides of Radley Park Ditch (RPD) and the developer must have constructed the footpaths to a sufficient standard for adoption by OCC. The route to the south of the bridge flanking the eastern side of RPD is one of the most attractive areas in that otherwise suburban part of town, so that’s probably something I need to highlight in any revised nomination.
I am still none the wiser as to why the second nominations were rejected so much quicker than the first, though, when the shortcomings of both nominations were essentially the same.
Cheers,
L15
1 Like
It’s great to see the research you are putting in. It is really the best way to construct a good nomination.
And you have turned up some good facts too.
It is hard to predict the time a nomination takes I have frequently had several similar nominations in the system at the same time and they comp,eye at different rates.
Good luck
2 Likes
Thank you all for your replies and encouragement.
I have resubmitted both nominations with:
- updated titles to put more emphasis on the character of the environment in which the bridges sit
- updated descriptions set out the official status of the routes that the bridges sit and provide links confirming their existence on maps
- updated supporting information explains more about the background to the formation of the Summer Fields one and the various places that the Stonehill one allows access to
Cheers,
L15
2 Likes
Good luck
And don’t sweat the rejections. I have had a few that I nominated many many times. I nailed them all in the end. But only the ones that I felt fully met at least two of the three criteria.
Of those that I had to work at. Two of them took months. I mean months. And at least one was nominated by someone else and it got accepted So who knows the whys of the reviewers sometimes…
I will say this. The hard work of doing those nominations has made me a better submitter 
And that included the advice I got from here. Nominate fewer with a way higher success rate… And nearly always use the submit later button.
Onwards
3 Likes
I am used to rejections - 22 since I started nominating on 20th October 2024. However, it is the 31 accepted that makes that worth it! Amongst thos stats, I have had one nomination that I managed to get past ML after two rejections, which the community then accepted first time. I have had one nomination that was originally rejected by the community that I managed to get accepted at the second attempt.
Cheers,
L15
1 Like
I might have to follow in your multi-nomination footsteps: a third rejection for the Stonehill bridge, the one that had more potential, after only 12 hours in voting too.
1 Like
Oh that’s quick.
Was it a community reject?
Now that you have all the information about the path it is worth an appeal.
Yes, all three have been community rejections. I’m still not understanding why this rejection is much quicker than the first, given the improvement in photos and additional information provided since then, which I would have thought at least merited more, not less, deliberation.
I’ll see how the other resubmissions get on (other footbridge, ironwork, riding centre), because appeals are a rare commodity and need to be used wisely.
1 Like
They preferred the modern route through the housing estate:
3 Likes
Yay!! Very well done
I would keep trying with the other especially since its on a public right of way
2 Likes
Good to see.
It shows how finely balanced these can be.
You could appeal the other one?
I think I will post the latest nomination in here first, in case I have introduced an obvious blooper and, in any event, there is always room for improvement:
1 Like
