This is an example of the crosses I am referring to. Examples of wayside crosses with a space (niche, aedicule) can be very varied, so I did not consider it appropriate to focus on a particular example.
When the most relevant thing in the object is the cross, I do not consider it appropriate to consider it a wayside shrine. In cases where the cross is the most relevant, they should be considered wayside crosses.
I feel there should be a distinction between attached to a pole and something that is effectively a small building.
The first can be as simple a post in the shape of cross or other symbol driven into the ground. A tree with shadow box or larger container filled with iconography attached to it. Or some combination of both. In any case it would be lightweight and easily moved after a simple disassembly in the case a natural
This radically different from the more permanent roadside structures. These are often larger but substantial structures made of regular building materials. In some cases they even include substantial landscaping. This type shrine would take planning and possibly heavy machinery to safely move.
I would call all your others shrines, but this may help explicate something about the issue. I would describe all of these as crucifixes not crosses, so shrines containing a crucifix. It is quite likely that such a distinction does not exist in other languages, or that it is not as clear cut.
In the UK crosses are largely unadorned and largely take the form of remaining Celtic crosses or market/mercat crosses. Large crosses with a crucifex are really quite rare, although they do exist.
I think the “recognisable at a distance” with or without a crucified image of Jesus Christ, is a workable definition. Note many mercat crosses dont seem to have a cross-arm, complicating matters a bit.