Do You Agree With Historic England This Ancient Sidewalk/Pavement is Interesting?


It's Grade 2 Listed. I was contemplating nominating it. Seems like it would be a hard sell though.

Clearly, the relevant authorities find it noteworthy and particularly historic. There's room for it to appear in all the Niantic games. I find myself agreeing with Historic England, and average reviewer is, of course, not a historian, so for them to disagree with actual historians would be a bit arrogant of them, surely!

«1

Comments

  • HankWolfman-PGOHankWolfman-PGO Posts: 1,382 ✭✭✭✭✭

    You will probably struggle with that despite it being listed. If you do go ahead with it, definitely make sure the first sentence of the description (and possibly even the title) mentions the Grade II Listing, and that the supporting info includes the link to the listing. That may encourage reviewers to not immediately 1* it.

    Personally I would give it a good review. Things only get listed if they have historic and/or architectural importance, and it's got safe access and isn't on private residential property.

  • TheFarix-PGOTheFarix-PGO Posts: 3,912 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I would definitely start off with it being grade 2 listed, but it may still be a hard. Personally, I've not had good luck getting historic buildings accepted without a plaque or other signboard even when I do cite official government documents.

  • AScarletSabre-PGOAScarletSabre-PGO Posts: 741 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I've not had much luck either. I once nominated a building from the Regency era that's Grade 2 Listed, and even though there is a huge sign visible in the photograph that says "estate agents" (have their offices in the building) it still got rejected as "private residential property". I guess people some people get confused easily. It is frustrating.

  • WheelTrekker-INGWheelTrekker-ING Posts: 2,353 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Just like any other park, lake, waterfall, etc.... you might need an anchor point.

  • AScarletSabre-PGOAScarletSabre-PGO Posts: 741 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Possibly, though the stretch of cobblestone is actually rather short.I should be able to easily show it all in one photograph. It has clearly defined starts/endings, just like any other man-made structure.

  • Elijustrying-INGElijustrying-ING Posts: 865 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I agree interesting but I suspect a tough sell.

    I like the fact that people will mostly be unaware and that by having it in games it will raise awareness.

  • sogNinjaman-INGsogNinjaman-ING Posts: 2,884 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Being "historic" or "listed" does not mean automatic acceptance. As others have said, this would be a hard sell, a bit of pavement is still a bit of pavement. I can nip down the road and take a photo of a gravelled woodland ride that used to be a Roman Road, but it just looks like a gravelled woodland ride these days. A sign would really help this nomination.

  • sara22au-PGOsara22au-PGO Posts: 37 ✭✭✭

    The problem with "interesting" is it's purely subjective .

    Ruins, unfortunately, get rejected constantly, because they never look interesting in photos. Which is very dissapointing, given they meet criteria 100%.

    Thing is, I'm not the only person playing. Just because I find it boring and bland, doesn't mean others feel the same way.

    If it meets criteria, and there are no valid reasons to reject it, it should be approved.

  • AScarletSabre-PGOAScarletSabre-PGO Posts: 741 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited December 2021

    I agree. Indeed, being "historic" or "listed" does not mean automatic acceptance, because we still need to apply the usual rejection criteria to any item we nominate. If it does not meet the following rejection criteria then why reject it?

    1. Is the listed structure on a single family private residential property?
    2. Does the listed structure obstruct the emergency services in any way?
    3. Is the listed structure on school grounds?

    If there answer to those three question is "no", then people should accept the listed structure in review. The powers that be obviously think the listed structure is worthy of note, otherwise it would not be listed. I always assume Historic England know better than some random grumpy reviewer.

  • AScarletSabre-PGOAScarletSabre-PGO Posts: 741 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited December 2021

    I'm assuming the person who disagreed with my comment above believes all listed structures should be accepted without applying the usual rejection criteria? Or what? I was not aware I was saying anything controversial. Do we accept nominations on school grounds simply because they are listed now?

  • WheelTrekker-INGWheelTrekker-ING Posts: 2,353 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I didn't disagree, But I think that they might not agree that being listed means that it's a worthy nomination for Wayfarer. They want only the absolutely best PoI while playing a game, otherwise their experience would be ruined if they have an easy way to replenish supplies.

  • VladDraco-PGOVladDraco-PGO Posts: 554 ✭✭✭✭

    I think you forgot, but you can have said if you think of it :

    4) Don't have pedestrian access.

    For example some chimneys in industrial building can be listed but if we cannot have any access to them, so they should not be a Waypoint

  • AScarletSabre-PGOAScarletSabre-PGO Posts: 741 ✭✭✭✭✭

    What I am saying is: do we trust the people working for the governmental bodies whose job it is to be a historian or do we not? When it comes to history, I trust Historic England to know what is and is not "historic". There are people working for them who have doubtless spent many years at highly esteemed universities, such as Oxford and Cambridge studying the disciplines architecture and history.

    Or, you know, we could just let some rando Wayfarer(s) on the WWW angrily dictate to people what is and is not "historic" because they happen to have a vendetta against the government or something? Could be simple issue of mistrust I suppose. There is a lot of misinformation out there.

    I ask again: do we seriously disagree with the experts who live and breathe history every day of their lives because it's their job? It seems ridiculous to me. It's not as if people go around telling medical professionals that disinfectants (bleach) are better at fighting Covid-19 than vaccines, do we? Oh wait...

    Perhaps this disagreement with the governmental bodies on what is and is not historic stems from a wider mistrust of the government that has accrued during these pestilential times? Mistrust of the government can indeed be warranted (just look at the Tuskegee Syphilis Study for example). However, in this case I'm not sure what is to be gained disagreeing who want to preserve our architectural heritage, except for some misguided effort of wanting to maintain a higher standard of database than what Niantic expects. A rather nebulous goal, I must say.


    I also agree with @VladDraco-PGO that does not have pedestrian access is a forth reason for rejection.

  • AScarletSabre-PGOAScarletSabre-PGO Posts: 741 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I also believe the Dunning-Kruger effect and delusions of grandeur also could explain why some people hold the perception that they know better than Historic England.


  • Gazzas89-PGOGazzas89-PGO Posts: 1,625 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I agree with this, if its listed then it clearly has value of some kind, if it doesnt meet rejection criteria and the person submitting has at least some way proven its listed, it should be accepted

  • Gazzas89-PGOGazzas89-PGO Posts: 1,625 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Niantic has said on previous occasions that if your submitting something on a building, you don't need to be able to touch that thing but instead able to touch the building its on

  • AScarletSabre-PGOAScarletSabre-PGO Posts: 741 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I'm assuming the fact the person who disagreed has not outed themselves, exposes them as having an indefensible opinion. I always provide listing entries whenever I nominate a valid (does not meet any rejection criteria) listed building. If people are going to disagree with the panels of experts at Historic England they are being silly.

    I understand disagreeing with experts is all the rage right now, thanks to certain politicians who tell us they know better than the experts in a given field. This is a mindset that does need to be fought. It's very detrimental to society.

  • Gazzas89-PGOGazzas89-PGO Posts: 1,625 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Honestly, i think the best chance would be if noantic came oit and said "yes, listed buildings, so long as they don't meet rejection criteria, are eligible and acceptable" it woukd save so much hurt

  • WheelTrekker-INGWheelTrekker-ING Posts: 2,353 ✭✭✭✭✭

    That Historic England body might know perfectly well all the old buildings and structures around your country, but in the end it's up to you to explain to the reviewers why it's a worthy nomination for Wayfarer.

    I've read today all the info provided in the page that you linked and I think: What acceptance criteria does it meet? it doesn't seem that there's much to explore if all the description that they provide is a single sentence "RAISED PAVEMENT BETWEEN THE OLD BAKERY (BROAD STREET) AND MAIN ENTRANCE TO LAMBES HOUSE (HIGH STREET), BROAD STREET" repeated several times and then

    SUTTON VALENCE BROAD STREET TQ 8049-8149 (north side) and HIGH STREET (north side) 7/115 Raised Pavement between The Old Bakery (Broad Street) and main entrance to Lambes House (High Street) GV II

    Raised pavement about five feet broad, rising irregularly from a few inches to about one foot above road level. Stone setts of roughly regular size, roughly coursed.

    Listing NGR: TQ8134949228

    So, When was it built? What makes it special?

  • AScarletSabre-PGOAScarletSabre-PGO Posts: 741 ✭✭✭✭✭

    The Historic England pages do not always provide all of the detail required, and even though I do link to them as supporting evidence, I also always aim to do my own independent research. I take pride in every nomination I am able to make. In cases where I am unable to provide the detail I would like about a building, I do not make the nomination; I'm always happy to do a quick web search, but if researching means a trip to the county archives at the library, I'm not going to bother in that instance.

    In the case of the pavement, there is speculation that it forms part of the Roman infrastructure of the area, as it alongside the road that goes between two Roman settlements. I don't know about you, but cobblestone pavements are an exceptional site where I live. They just do not build them like they use to, as they say.

    I would argue the raise pavement there for meets the exploration criteria. It affords me the opportunity to talk about ancient construction methods. Even if it turns out the raised pavement is a bit younger than Roman times, there is still something to be said of the cobble stones. People have probably seen tarmac being laid, so the curious human mind will invariably be drawn to this unique feature of the village.

  • Gazzas89-PGOGazzas89-PGO Posts: 1,625 ✭✭✭✭✭

    If its listed then specialists think it's historical, if its historical then it meets the exploration criteria, thats pretty much all it needs imo, unless you can


    1. Explain what rejection criteria it meets


    2. Explain why you think you know more than those specialists

  • WheelTrekker-INGWheelTrekker-ING Posts: 2,353 ✭✭✭✭✭

    No, please, explain to us why that's an interesting place to explore.

    It might be valuable somehow to keep it registered in that listing, but that doesn't mean automatically that it's an interesting place to explore.

    Give us data to explain why it's interesting besides being in a listing with 3 sentences about it.

  • ElwynGreygoose-PGOElwynGreygoose-PGO Posts: 208 ✭✭✭

    Yeah I'm not joining in on either side but just pointing out that in some old towns virtually every building is listed. Should they all be POI? Something to think about. Maybe they should.

    I've spent 2 years trying to get a grade II listed 17th Century structure accepted, but maybe nobody else finds it interesting, or nobody would go exploring to see it. I'm biased, it's just around the corner from me, I accept that.

  • Gazzas89-PGOGazzas89-PGO Posts: 1,625 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I do t need 3 sentences, all I need to say is a specialist has decided its worth being listed, that makes it historical and therefore worth finding while out exploring, even if its just "huh I'd didnt know this was a listed bit of pavement, that's cool" while walking along


    Just because you personally don't find it worth exploring doesn't mean its not to other people, if we go by what 1 person thinks isn't interesting, we could cancel out trig stones (I know several people who couldn't care less about them), trail markers (several people on here admit they don't like them) etc.


    If something is listed (at least in Scotland, dunno if it's exactly the same for england) its because it's either of local, national or international importance, either for art work/architecture or for what it did for the community, so it has value from that. For this one maybe there is a better website explaining why its listed (every listed thing I've seen on a website I use tells exactly why it's listed) but at the end of the day, listed = historical = eligible for exploration

  • AScarletSabre-PGOAScarletSabre-PGO Posts: 741 ✭✭✭✭✭

    It's true some places are full of listed structured. Since I have a limited number of nominations - or at least I used to before the change - I would prioritise things which I would actually see in the game(s) I play. Eventually, I may get to nominating things which do not appear in Pokémon GO. For entries in the Historic England database, I assume there must be a reason. Luckily, the majority of the more mundane entries are PRP or farm related.

    My comment regarding what I was going to put as a description is awaiting moderation still, for some reason. I'll aim to be more succinct here. I would say something like this:

    Title: Section of Ancient Raised Pavement in Sutton Valence

    Description: A small remaining section of ancient cobblestone path. The cobbles on the path are actually referred to as a sett, or "Belgian Blocks" and are usually made of granite. Setts were used on steeper streets (such as this one in the direction of East Sutton) because they afforded horse's hooves a better grip. Note the camber (curve) of the path; this allows water to run off into ditches (or the modern drain beside it).

    @WheelTrekker-ING There.

  • WheelTrekker-INGWheelTrekker-ING Posts: 2,353 ✭✭✭✭✭

    3 sentences is all that the website provides as explanation about this item.

    You highly valued specialists aren't providing more info about why that's an interesting place, I would say that the only reason why it's listed there is because it's old.

    Why do you ask for our opinions if you are gonna attack those that disagree with you?

  • Gazzas89-PGOGazzas89-PGO Posts: 1,625 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I'm not asking for opinions, I'm ointi g out that you seem to think your opinion is higher than the specialists. And unless it's different in England, Scotland doesn't just list things because they are old, there's several buildings around d here that are old but aren't listed, things get listed for their importance, either local, national or international, so your "it's probably listed cause its old" just isn't going to be the case

  • AScarletSabre-PGOAScarletSabre-PGO Posts: 741 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Thank you for your kind words. I probably be back in that area at some point in January to nominate the ancient pavement. Looking back at the photographs, it seems I was misremembering the shape of the pavement here, so I'll remove the sentence about the camber as it's not relevant to this particular cobblestone path. Sadly, I did not see any mounting blocks* in this village (they would function as a good "anchor point" for the pavement), but I have seen them elsewhere.

    *Mounting blocks were used to help people onto horses and are often found outside village pubs/inns/taverns in my experience (Churches too). There are a couple of different mounting blocks I've been meaning to nominate as an interesting piece of street furniture, but there are other villages I want to focus on first.

  • oscarc1-INGoscarc1-ING Posts: 334 ✭✭✭✭✭

    If it does not meet the following rejection criteria then why reject it?

    There are a lot more rejection reasons than the ones you have given, see Rejection Criteria.

    It might be protected by Historic England, and approved by some "specialist" (it's in quotation marks because anybody can make an application for a site but it doesn't say specialist, it just says Historic England).

    At the end of the day, if you nominate the pavement, it's up to the reviewers to determine whether it's acceptable or not, Historic England, as an organisation, doesn't have a stake in the Niantic database.

    Looking at the listing and the description text given, it's nothing more than a cobblestone path, extremely common and uninteresting. It might fall under the Acceptance Criteria of "Unique Art or Architecture", but nothing has been conveyed to show why it would be considered that way. So an objective person might then look at Historic England, and see no reason why the path is special in there (it only lists the location and the irregular dimensions of the path), so once might determine that it falls onto the Rejection Criteria of "The object is mass-produced, generic, or not visually unique or interesting." - as after all, it's just a footpath. If there's history to it, demonstrate it, don't just describe the path, but show us why this path is special (beyond just being listed).

Sign In or Register to comment.