Title: Criteria Discussion: Geographic Significance vs. “Regular Bridge” (Concrete Cycle Path Bridge over the Wetter River)
Location: 50.5394955, 8.8913848
City: Reiskirchen (Nieder-Bessingen / Ober-Bessingen)
Short Description:
A modern concrete cycle path bridge from 2008 crossing the Wetter river along the official connecting route between Nieder-Bessingen and Ober-Bessingen.
Context & Personal Research:
My appeal was recently rejected by Niantic with the note that it is a “regular bridge.”
I wanted to share this example because a lot of detailed local research went into this submission: this bridge crosses the “Wetter” river—the very stream that gives our entire “Wetterau” region its historic name—and forms a key connecting segment of the official Wetter-Radweg.
While I avoided overloading the nomination description with excessive text, I genuinely believed the combination of an official cycle route and crossing a regionally namesake river made it a notable point of interest for exploration.
I’d love to get the community’s perspective: where exactly is the line drawn between a “regular functional bridge” and an eligible trail bridge when significant local geography is involved?
Weiße Schilder mit Grünem Fahrrad sind keine Radwanderwege, sondern nur Infrastruktur die nicht zulässig sind.
Du kannst, wenn ein Radwanderweg hier verläuft, eine Karte oder Ähnliches in die Zusatzinformationen verlinken, damit du zeigen kannst, dass diese Brücke in Verbindung mit dem Kriterium Bewegung steht
Thank you so much for the clear distinction between standard bike signs and named trail markers, @kawin240!
Also, I really appreciate you taking the time to find and link the official Wetterau cycling brochure—that PDF will be extremely useful for backing up future nominations with official maps in the supporting info. Thanks again!
For me, bridges can meet either the exploration or the exercise criteria (or both!)
If a bridge encourages walking or cycling by providing pedestrians and cyclists with a short cut between two somewhat notable locations (this could be as simple as a housing estate and a shopping centre), meaning that fewer people are driving, then this could absolutely meet the exploration criteria.
If a bridge is historic and/or pretty to look at, then there’s no reason it can’t be worth exploring.
The problem with your bridge is that it remains a road bridge, so it isn’t promoting exercise over driving, and (at least from this angle) it doesn’t look particularly interesting. I would probably have rejected this one.
(Other reviewers will of course have differing approaches here!)
(Please also note that bridges only meet social criteria for trolls).
