Environmental exposure becomes a comparative problem when participants indicate places that are pleasant or unpleasant along daily journeys rather than rating an entire neighbourhood. Across Copenhagen, Helsinki, London, Munich and Las Palmas, 4,964 respondents identified 8,048 mapped places. Participatory GIS connects these accounts to vegetation, water, season, day and night, and spatially varying associations. The result cannot be flattened into the claim that more greenery always generates a better journey: associations differ across contexts, conspicuously in the subtropical city of Las Palmas, while participant selection and geolocated recollection have their own limits. The decisive operation is spatially anchored appraisal with explicit temporal context. By joining environmental geography, mobility research and perception studies, the authors reveal how a common protocol may compare locations without presuming identical ecological thresholds or meanings. The resulting point dataset is neither a continuous record of all travel nor a sensor's objective measure of pleasure. Its evidential value depends on preserving that distinction.