Hi Mark
As Roundtuit has suggested perhaps a "unique" solution.
Sounds rather grown up to me!
All too often organisations set blanket rules so either people in an area need no PPE, or the full works (whatever the "full works" might mean in any particular organisation).
Which can result in a multitude of negative outcomes ranging from people considering they are being treated as children through to so much PPE that isn't actually NECESSARY but is imposed "just in case" and e.g. increased heat stress.
Now I do understand why organisations can be reluctant to work on the basis that the PPE is decided on the basis of each and every specific task being done on a work site, partly as Worker A who doesn't need to wear e.g. eye protection when at their workstation may need to pass alongside a task where Worker B definitely DOES need such protection, and if so, then Worker A does as well (even if for only a few seconds).
However the end result is often that blanket rules are applied to large work areas where MOST of those there don't need some of the PPE that they are forced to use.
....and sometimes those blanket rules are applied with little recognition of what is pragmatic.
I remember being summoned to the scene of a fatal accident to be part of the Client's investigation team. As you might expect the scene had been frozen and no work was being done anywhere near where the accident had occurred EXCEPT that of the investigation team.
The Client had a blanket "Safety gloves must be worn on site", as did we. I volunteered for the task of taking the photos, partly as I had learned from bitter experience that one can rarely take enough photos of an accident scene, including the ones from angles you don't realise are important until after you have finished (AND it's usually too late to go back and remedy your mistake!).
Our so called Golden Rule was premised by the mantra "We can find the right gloves whatever the taak". So I suppose the right gloves would be ones that would give me dexterity, so nice and thin and good for e.g. chemical protection. However, the only realistic risk of hand injury at the time was being cut by jagged edges on rusty metal (NO it shouldn't have been rusty but that issue was entirely immaterial to the nature of the incident - except perhaps as an indicator of the overall culture of the site).
So there I was wearing heavy duty cut resistant gloves. Did my dynamic risk assessement that told me that the way to do the job safely, yet efficiently/effectively was to keep clear of the jaggy edges, take the gloves off, take lots of photos and then put the gloves back on. It was the pragmatic thing to do. An investigation team whose cumulative hourly rate would have been lots of £££ had a task to accomplish. To do that EITHER I had to insist on the jaggy edges be dealt with (while the investigation team all twiddled their thumbs) and the site be then redesignated as NOT needing gloves or only ones that could be used whilst taking photos efficiently - which of course would have been the solution playing by the rules that had been set OR I found a solution that meant we could get on with a difficult task and NOT keep those waiting to hear the outcome of the investigation waiting for longer than was necessary.
Would I have been popular if I had said "Not going to take photos until the jaggy edges have been sorted and the site can be redesignated as not requirng cut protection"? Probably NOT! Would someone have denounced me for not following Golden Rules if I had managed to cut myself on the jaggy edges? PROBABLY! Nobody should really think that applying a proportionate approach to managing H&S risks is always easy.
You have explained why you have some pedestrian traffic routes that cannot be relatively easily be physically from moving traffic, so your amber Hi Vis required zone seems to me to be a sensible compromise.