I consider crosses like this - placed over the altar or in a niche - to be part of the interior design of the church - it's not a separate place of worship. On the other hand, individual crosses in the church yard, for example, are eligible as separate objects in my opinion.
I would even reject most crosses/statues/altars around the church as well, unless they're part of something entire different (like a nearby war memorial).
A large cathedral might have multiple waypoints but if this were nominated on the inside of a small church I would consider it part of the church as a whole - duplicate submission.
Pretty tough to make the case for the interior of a church, I think. I get separate pins for gardens, architectural features, and iconography that’s on the outside and publicly accessible, but the inside seems like it should be reserved for the church’s sacred activities.
A cross no. However, sometimes a Church will have a `roll of honour` on the inside, akin to a war memorial, and I could see accepting this. Generally, features on the inside of a religious building I'd reject. Though for something big, like the UNESCO listed Canterbury Cathedral, I might be more generous seeing as the structure is so grandiose.
As someone from a non-Christian country, I might be able to give a slightly less biased view.
Seeing as distinguished artwork on the walls of a restaurant/pub is a valid submission, I think rejecting this on the basis of "It's part of the venue's decoration" is an incorrect and unfair approach. Heck, I would even go as far as to say that stained glass windows with iconography are a valid submission, assuming they're distinguished enough.
In general, I would reject this cross:
And accept this one(assuming it's submitted as one submission, including the back wall)
Picture: a religious building, and some ritual taking place inside… prayer, funeral, or a lecture or service. Inside this sacred building is a waypoint. Five people knock on the doors, interrupting the event within, and ask to come in for ten minutes so they can play a video game.
Skipping past how ridiculous and far-fetched your scenario sounds, and ignoring the fact the wayspots can be interacted with from a great distance, you ARE aware that most churches which are wayspots nowadays have the marker itself directly on them and that having another marker for the cross would be just more of the same?
Comments
I consider crosses like this - placed over the altar or in a niche - to be part of the interior design of the church - it's not a separate place of worship. On the other hand, individual crosses in the church yard, for example, are eligible as separate objects in my opinion.
I would even reject most crosses/statues/altars around the church as well, unless they're part of something entire different (like a nearby war memorial).
A large cathedral might have multiple waypoints but if this were nominated on the inside of a small church I would consider it part of the church as a whole - duplicate submission.
Pretty tough to make the case for the interior of a church, I think. I get separate pins for gardens, architectural features, and iconography that’s on the outside and publicly accessible, but the inside seems like it should be reserved for the church’s sacred activities.
A cross no. However, sometimes a Church will have a `roll of honour` on the inside, akin to a war memorial, and I could see accepting this. Generally, features on the inside of a religious building I'd reject. Though for something big, like the UNESCO listed Canterbury Cathedral, I might be more generous seeing as the structure is so grandiose.
As someone from a non-Christian country, I might be able to give a slightly less biased view.
Seeing as distinguished artwork on the walls of a restaurant/pub is a valid submission, I think rejecting this on the basis of "It's part of the venue's decoration" is an incorrect and unfair approach. Heck, I would even go as far as to say that stained glass windows with iconography are a valid submission, assuming they're distinguished enough.
In general, I would reject this cross:
And accept this one(assuming it's submitted as one submission, including the back wall)
Picture: a religious building, and some ritual taking place inside… prayer, funeral, or a lecture or service. Inside this sacred building is a waypoint. Five people knock on the doors, interrupting the event within, and ask to come in for ten minutes so they can play a video game.
Skipping past how ridiculous and far-fetched your scenario sounds, and ignoring the fact the wayspots can be interacted with from a great distance, you ARE aware that most churches which are wayspots nowadays have the marker itself directly on them and that having another marker for the cross would be just more of the same?