They are a kinda trail mark. I have been getting a few to review.
I have a few round me that don’t follow roads and provide linking from housing estates to woods or shortcuts across town. They kinda work as path marks.
They are an odd one for sure. I am tempted to accept. And am tempted to reject. I am tempted to nominate and tempted to not.
But they are used by community as walking paths between places. Generally don’t follow roads.
Anyhow. I got this nomination again and would love to get a view. Because when I read this criteria clarification Trails & Markers - #2 I feel it supports there is a validity case to nominate/accept provided the suite of critera is met
I would vote to rejected any Public Rights of Way marker that doesn’t establish that it’s a recognised walking trail. They are very common, and are often just cut-throughs or shortcuts. If there’s a named trail marker on it then that’s good, if it can be shown that the marker is on a named trail (e.g. OSM, local council or park websites, LDWA in the UK) then that’s good too.
There’s a bit of a difference between how these footpaths are regarded in different places. In the US markers like this do seem to indicate an actual walking trail suitable for exploring, in the UK these PROWs are paths that are hundreds of years old but often only served as a convenience - for example for farm workers to get to the farm, for people to go to church and that sort of thing. In time some of those paths became roads, but some didn’t. Essentially a lot of footpaths are just part of infrastructure and have no notability.
I can see three such markers from my front door. None of them are wayspots.
3 Likes
We have a right old mess in the U.K. with the way PROW are being viewed.
From the criteria clarifications PROW are eligible for consideration. Each follows a set path and has a distinct “name” - it can be a number, or alpha numeric it varies. So each PROW is different and distinguishable.
Fundamentally the PROW that slow us to walk and explore are good.
I use http://www.rowmaps.com/ as a great resource to check on the PROW.
The question then is the particular case in a nomination acceptable.
It is the trail/ route that is the thing that may meet criteria not the markers. The markers are acting as anchors for the route. So a simple PROW marker is of itself fine.
The submitter should then make the case that this is a path that meets criteria.
In my view a simple short path swallowed up by housing is not doing that. If however that represents a short section of a much longer PROW so perhaps it goes across fields a short passage between houses and then continues on across fields/woods that would be ok.
One that allows you to walk through fields and woods should be good.
There is a judgement call to be made. And it is up to the submitter to make the case.
A simple description of footpath and much the same in a supplementary is unlikely to get accepted.
It’s a bit of a lottery at the moment. I had 2 that I submitted from the same small country lane in different sections. For both I provided the PROW details, both were starting at the lane and going across the open countryside, on streetview and the paths visible on satellite. 1 accepted and the other will need to wait for appeal. Both are providing new wayspots in a previous wayspot black hole.
4 Likes
I think with these, the onus is on the submitter. They need to say why it’s a footpath that would meet the exercise or exploration criteria. (Maybe it could meet social but not often)
I want to know where the pathway goes, why it’s of note, and would like a link about it if possible. If not, I consider them pretty weak and low effort from the submitter.
I often find the submitters of these make no effort to describe them and are just submitting either because they’ve seen one on the map elsewhere or simply on a hope that it might be approved.
I would accept a nomination that seeks to talk about why this section of a route is interesting. It may pass housing or woodland or go towards somewhere interesting like the river. If it’s low effort and doesn’t describe the route then I’m likely to reject as “not distinct” but if there is something to say the route is a good place to exercise and what I’m going to see when following it then I’m likely to accept as a good place to exercise and also explore potentially
I do also submit these myself. In complete agreement with @elijustrying on these
1 Like
Perhaps I’ll air one of my frustrations…
This walking trail is well documented, it’s on the LDWA site and OSM plus many other resources. Trail markers are a mix of hard plastic ones nailed to wooden posts, or adhesive ones where the post is metal. I know from StreetView that these date back to at least 2016.
My view is that this is an entirely eligible wayspot because the important thing is the trail itself and not the marker. In most cases they are attached to a standard PROW marker. Most often that not the labels get rejected as not permanent, when they are. Even without the marker the trail should still be eligible IMO.
3 Likes
That is hugely frustrating, yes. I had a similar experience in the last week with a metal National Cycle Network Route 5 sign 
I find all trails to be complete hit and miss, no way to predict what will happen.
Oh, I’ve seen a few of these. Now I know to reject them!
Joking of course
1 Like
The NCN signs are frustrating, I think people believe they are mass produced when really they aren’t. Because these signs are designed to be used on the highway they have to meet certain standards which makes them look a bit generic.
The pet hate I have with those is people who don’t know an NCN marker from a non-NCN marker. Both types are potentially eligible, but some are just local numbered routes.
2 Likes
Or people who are trying to pass off a non-NCN marker as an NCN marker, believing the latter to be eligible with the former not eligible. It’s hard to know whether they are doing this deliberately or don’t know the difference.
While we are talking about NCN
Have you noticed Sustrans ( soooo easy to say) has been rebranded to walk wheel cycle trust
And finding some routes has become tricky 
1 Like
Hadn’t noticed the name change despite searching for the NCN map via the sustrans website in the past few weeks, so maybe the website didn’t change immediately. It will take a little bit of getting used to, but I think the new name works better, especially for catching the attention of people who didn’t already know what sustrans were.
Looks like it is just a name change, not a change of purpose, so the NCN stays. As will the website and the difficulty of simply browsing the network and clicking on routes.
While on the subject of bike routes, I’ve had a few of these accepted:
TBH, most got rejected because cycle markers aren’t always that pedestrian friendly I suppose. I only realised these were important when I saw someone else submitting them.
They have a map here - The National Route – The National Byway® - the routes are also on OSM which is better.
It’s a valid cycle route and as long as the markers are in a safe space for pedestrians (not always the case), they should be perfectly eligible.
I happen to dislike these cycle routes as they have been - for me - absolutely useless even when I was going for 50+ mile cycle rides. Doesn’t stop me accepting them in review 
Going back to the “Public Footpath” sign I usually Reject.
Quite a lot of them come across that they know they are weak so try to boost there chances by calling them “Trail Marker”.
The other trait is the “you can then continue to the Beach, Wayfarer Trail or Town Centre”, surely the things mentioned are the possible waypoints not a path that leads towards them.
If I walk on the pavement at the front of my house this leads to the bus stop, which leads to the train station which leads towards every single waypoint in the country, I could continue to the airport and go global. Doesn’t mean the pavement should be eligible…
I prefer footpath or bridleway, however I don’t see anything that bad in calling it a trail marker especially since the generic language around these and even if you have to pick a category trail marker fits.
So I think that’s one of those things that if all else is ok it can be edited. It would be good enough wouldn’t reject for that reason.
As the sign states, it’s a Footpath and not a Trail.
I see these as generic infrastructure.
A Trail may include sections that are on a “Public Footpath” but this sign is not a Marker for the Trail, it is just a sign that tells you it is a Footpath that can be used by the Public.
This is why they are commonly used on short paths that connect 2 roads, even 2 estates.
I see these as no different to standard traffic signs but for pedestrians.
Occasionally you will get Hybrid signs that will state “Niantic Way - Public Footpath” which if I can confirm the location with the info I have I will Accept, otherwise I “Skip”.
The others are “Public Footpath” signs that have had the Adhesive circle added. If the circle includes the trail name and location is confirmable I will accept, if not I will skip due to my already discussed process with the “Arrow” style markers.
Just to confirm I skip the “Arrows” therefor not stopping these getting through.
2 Likes
I also look at what would an ordinary person understand when they see the title. Trail marker is easy to understand, as is footpath, bridleway, or walking route, etc. I wouldn’t reject a footpath that referred to a trail marker if the submission was otherwise good
1 Like
I don’t see a difference between a dedicated footpath connecting points and many of the other various trail marks.
Some trails are dedicated to wild flowers. Some are new trails to show of architecture. But most trails are just former paths connecting various points. Many longer trails are made up or shorter footpaths. Some are paved. Some are muddy. Some are very long. Some are very short.
As for common. There are probably less of these signs in some areas than those ickle trail stickers or cycle network paths signs. In my local village. I know of 6 of these signs but there are 60 odd little trail marks.
They are official
They are permanent
They are dedicated walking paths
Safely accessible (its a footpath)
They are not street name signs, they are not cycle path signs, car direction signs
Now if a story can be told. That links to interesting facts, connection points then they can transform into something of interest. An anchor point if you will
Hence my interest. And they can be a darn site more interesting than a shopping centre sign on the road outside said centre. And many other POIS all ready as a WayPoints. Or that silly street corner trial as waypoints (eyes rolling)
Anyhow. Thank you all for your comments. interesting
2 Likes
Remembering the rule of “Trail Markers” is that you are nominated the interesting Trail not the marker. With these type of “Public Footpath” sign, Locally we get the following types…
1: A tarmac path between 2 of the following… Houses, Hedge, Fence, School. This path leads from 1 residential street to another. Nothing of interest to see.
2: A path along a farmers field, slightly more interesting but still not a Trail. In place as it was a Public Footpath probably before the housing estates where built but it’s only use now is to connect the 2 estates in a shorter route and taking you off the road side.
3: A “Public Footpath” that happens to also be part of a trail. These will usually have the name of the Trail as well as “Public Footpath” especially for the major trails (Pennine Way, Thames Path etc) or will have the adhesive Trail Name “discs” added (normally on more “local Trails”).
To me these are…
1: Reject
2: Reject
3: Acceptable if everything else is correct. Skip if can not be confirmed (location etc).
1 Like
