Tree-mounted footpath marker

What’s wrong with this? I initially submitted this because to me it seemed quite unusual (I see footpath signs mounted to lamp posts, or on their own fixed poles, but never saw one attached to a tree). I submitted it like that about a month or 2 ago and it then got rejected.
After it got rejected I looked into the footpath more and found that it was a PROW, where the path would have led into the nearby countryside area and also is part of a trail on a different section of it. I decided to submit an appeal, where I restated that I thought it was particularly unusual because of it being mounted onto a tree and also said that it was part of public footpath 95 on this map ArcGIS Web Application where I told them to zoom in where it says “Warlingham” in the top right and then the top left of that where they could find the footpath.

Yet it still got rejected. I thought it would have tied into Trails & Markers as well but I don’t know. Is there anything I can do to improve?


Hello,

Being this is on a mapped out foot path, FP 95, the name should be included in the title to make it more official. If it’s pointing to 2 different paths, you may want to include both path names in the title. I think it’s best to note that it’s mounted to a tree in the description, not the title.

Right now, it just looks like a couple pieces of wood pointing in random directions, nothing unique about them. Just looking at some of the trail markers for the paths, they do seem to be like this: wooden. I can see one on Street View that just says Public Footpath around 51.360419259404175, -0.6081361004633419.

You didn’t post the description, so I can’t say what may need improving on that. However, the link to the map would be helpful to include in the supporting info. If there are 2 paths that converge here, that information would be helpful to include in the description as well.

1 Like

It could be eligible due to being a marker for a path, so encouragin exercise and exploring

Trail markers/footpath markers don’t need to be unique in design since the aim is to help people navigate a route, and the exercise/exploring part of that is what meets critieria

So while being mounted to a tree is cool, its not what makes it eligible, so focus on what the routes are and what makes those cool, and hopefully it can be approved.

1 Like

To put it simply, you need to validate what trail it is on , IF at all. Normal signs like this one are not really eligible on their own, also it is very hard to see what is on the wood itself. I would get closer and use Portrait mode for a focused main photo IF viable. Personally ive done many of the unknown trails in my area that utilise the official “Yellow Post”/ Yellow Markers set on known Rambler and walking routes throughout villages/towns in my area. A very useful website that shows ALL UK trails and walks is www.LDWA.org.uk . Search for a known trail near you and tick the boxes on the left of the map to show all routes. IF you have trouble, let me know a place near you and i can see if any are nearby.

Good luck.

1 Like

Great point. Just because there is a marker, it does not become automatically eligible. The burden of proof is on the submitter to prove that the marker is indeed part of a recognised trail.

1 Like

Remember that it is the trail or in this Footpath 95 that is the interest and meets criteria, and the markers are simply anchors to show the route.
So what is critical is the change of direction/ meeting point of paths.
So the description should describe the trail and what you are likely to see.
The supplementary should include the links to the websites that show the trail.

If you take a good crisp photo so that it shows the writing on the marker along with the text there is a good chance Emily will approve.
If the writing on the sign is non-existent or poor it will be hard.

1 Like

Thank you guys for all of your help. :heart:

I have gone back and taken new photos (although I think they’re worse) and I also rewrote the title and description.


2 Likes

I hope it works out! Hard to get good lighting under a tree. I would approve this. Lets hope you get kind reviewers

1 Like

Good luck.