Why did this get rejected.
Shottix-ING
Posts: 85 ✭✭✭
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
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?
It is a private residence. Your nomination says so. The fact that it’s open for visitors doesn’t make it not a private residence.
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.
There’s a single family living there? It’s private property? I mean. Yes. Yes it does meet the definition of private residential property.
Actually it is excluded
The rejection critera states "Location is a private residential property (even if historical) "
A stately home, is technically PRP if they live there and according to Wikipedia and other sources the property is still privately owned by the Proby family.
The fact its open to the public on set periods doesn't mean it isn't PRP, that just means that they allow visitors on certain dates.
For example I could allow people into my back garden once a week to admire my raspberry bushes, sunflowers and my kids chalk drawings on the paving slabs, that doesnt stop my house being PRP.
Now the issue becomes more nuanced as to if it is still a home or is it a business ?
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!
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".
Actually no, thats called permissive access, which is at the land / property owners permission.
Its not public access and doesn't invalidate any PRP reason.
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.
Nope.
Lets try another example
LFL's on PRP are accessible to the public all year round, that doesnt make them valid POI's.
Things on PRP are invalid.
You're confusing private property access, which is what restricted access at an office is, with private residential property, which accessing things in the grounds of a house is.
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/
Again no
Properties that have shared ownership with the National Trust where a family live in the east wing or such, are again an entirely different thing to Private Residential Property. A comparison would be pub landlords that live in the accommodation above the pub.
As to your comment regarding site managers living on site / grounds-people, they would be classed as employees with accommodation, having someone live there doesn't instantly make the whole area PRP, nor does it invalidate any existing PRP
As an example, my house and its grounds are PRP. Now imagine I had a gardener living in my shed in the garden. The shed is on my land and as such falls under my area of PRP.
Now imagine an open park, its owned by the council and is public land. Now the gardener lives in a shed on the park, the area of the shed itself may be classed as PRP (usually it would just be classed as private property, but thats a different discussion), it doesn't make the rest of the park PRP, just the specific part of it that is the area the shed is on.
Elton hall IS privately owned, there's no shared ownership agreement with anyone so it is PRP.
But, as I said above, there is a possiblitly that it could be argued that it is being run as a business, and that is a far more nuanced case of if it is PRP or not.
If I had to guess I would say its probably PRP, with permissive access granted for business reasons and that access doesn't stop or invalidate the PRP status of the property.
At first I was like "wow, this got rejected, how stupid are reviewers?" Then I realised. Probably a correct rejection, sadly.
Based on that rationale, you could claim that any wayspots at Windsor Castle should be rejected:
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.
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?
thats a tourist attraction. you need to change your description to that.
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.
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.
This is completely wrong, placing a lfl in my yard and allowing "public" access is not a workaround for the PRP rejection.
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.