Why did this get rejected.

Hello, I'm interested to know why this nomination wasn't accepted, appears to say that the reviewers marked it as private residential property, although in my supporting statement I made it clear it is open to the public every week. The website also states this, can the reviewers actually spend more than a few seconds marking each nomination as these take months to return and it is frustrating to keep getting valid nominations rejected because of the reviewers lack of research and time spent. Do better.


Comments

  • PkmnTrainerJ-INGPkmnTrainerJ-ING Posts: 5,125 Ambassador

    We’ve all had crappy rejections from nominations that should pass just fine. Maybe saying it was home to the Proby family made people think it still is, and thus it’s still a private residence?

  • Oakes1923-PGOOakes1923-PGO Posts: 419 ✭✭✭✭

    WOW.... just wow. @Shottix-ING I think this comment answers your question. LOL. Reading comprehension and critical reasoning skills seem to be the issue.

    A historic home, that is open to the public is not Niantic's definition of single family residential property. Submit again and best of luck.

  • CipherBlakk-PGOCipherBlakk-PGO Posts: 309 ✭✭✭✭

    That's the type of location that makes you want to burn the PRP criteria for sure. Wow! 😂 But yeah, as impressive as it is, I'm not sure you're not stuck. Is the hall you mention that's open to visitors its own separate area? Maybe you can just submit that portion? Is there a gift shop, and you can submit that on the basis of "historic building?" Is there a sign outside somewhere on a public road or walkway? Is it just OWNED and maintained by the family and no longer in use as an actual single family residence? Are there actually multiple families living there instead of just one?

    I feel like there must be some way to get something about the place as a POI, because it is, very obviously, a point of interest that people can visit. I would also be kind of surprised if people are still using it as a home, but who knows.

    Good luck!

  • sogNinjaman-INGsogNinjaman-ING Posts: 3,313 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Once you open the gardens / house / grounds to visitors, even once a year, it mean "the public" are allowed access. This situation is exactly the same as some of our local existing Waypoints that are only acessible once or twice a year. If you let visitors in, that invalidates the "PRP" rejection reason as there is "public access".

  • sogNinjaman-INGsogNinjaman-ING Posts: 3,313 ✭✭✭✭✭

    It's exactly the same situation as a restricted access office location - if employees and approved visitors are allowed then the Waypoint is valid. If the house opens to the public once a year then the Waypoint is valid, whether or not a single family live there.

  • sogNinjaman-INGsogNinjaman-ING Posts: 3,313 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited September 2021

    I'm going to have to disagree I'm afraid. If take your argument to it's conclusion, then any venue that has public access would be ineligible if there were a caretaker or Estate Manager or "a family" living on site. In the UK this is quite a common occurance in historic properties. There is often a site manager in residence, or the family that once owned the whole property have passed on the house to something like the National Trust but remain living on site in the "East Wing" or similar.

    Looking at the website for Elton Hall, there is clearly a large scale commercial operation ongoing at the site, they rent space for weddings or corporate events. Have a look. I don't see how an historic property with an ongoing commercial "visitor / public access" calendar like this could be considered a "PRP". I'll repeat my assertation that once you open the grounds or the house or beging renting out facilities to "the public", even on an occasional basis, then the site cannot be considered a "PRP" any longer.

    https://eltonhall.com/

  • AScarletSabre-PGOAScarletSabre-PGO Posts: 754 ✭✭✭✭✭

    At first I was like "wow, this got rejected, how stupid are reviewers?" Then I realised. Probably a correct rejection, sadly.

  • jhenstridge-PGOjhenstridge-PGO Posts: 37 ✭✭✭

    Based on that rationale, you could claim that any wayspots at Windsor Castle should be rejected:

    • It is privately owned (i.e. no shared ownership with the National Trust), and used as a residence by that family.
    • It is only open to the public on certain days.
    • Only a section of the property is made accessible to the public.

    I'd support rejecting wayspots located in the private areas of the property. But the parts being operated as a tourist attraction business seem different.

  • Eneeoh-PGOEneeoh-PGO Posts: 748 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Please consider the following assertion:

    Any permanent, in-person, public-facing, legitimate business that is located on a residential property removes the expectation of privacy. If a sign is up, and there’s an area where foot or car traffic is invited to enter and visit, that becomes a commercial zone.

    Property owners must use signage to indicate the public and private areas, or accept the consequences of not doing so.

    Would this resolve the Elton Manor and similar issues?

  • Rodensteiner-PGORodensteiner-PGO Posts: 1,705 ✭✭✭✭✭

    thats a tourist attraction. you need to change your description to that.

  • WheelTrekker-INGWheelTrekker-ING Posts: 3,387 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited September 2021

    As long as other objects on the outside wall of a single family home are not valid, anything inside single family homes (no matter how rich they are) is not valid.

    The Wayfarer criteria explains that being historic doesn't make the PRP rule void.

  • jhenstridge-PGOjhenstridge-PGO Posts: 37 ✭✭✭

    Isn't the difference in whether it is actually the wayspot is on the private residential vs. the commercial portion of the property?

    As another example, here's an announcement about a house where a former Australian Prime Minister grew up being added to the state heritage register:

    In this case, it remains a residential property on the rental market, rather than being converted to a museum or similar. So despite its historical and cultural value, it definitely should remain ineligible.

    That seems qualitatively different to a manor house charging £12.50 to visit.

  • Roli112-PGORoli112-PGO Posts: 2,236 Ambassador

    This is completely wrong, placing a lfl in my yard and allowing "public" access is not a workaround for the PRP rejection.

  • HankWolfman-PGOHankWolfman-PGO Posts: 4,853 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Niantic will not grant sponsored locations to businesses that are within private residential property, even if the public are expected to be able to go into the residence to use the business services. If they won't grant sponsorships because of the PRP rule, then it makes sense that places like Elton Hall would still have to be subject to it as well, and that this is a valid rejection.

Sign In or Register to comment.