Murals in a balcony keeps getting rejected for private proverty: is this ok?
Hello,
before talking about my case, I introduce myself: day-one PoGo player and Ingress Player since winter 2019. I'm quite into submitting and reviewing; i populated my town with more than 200 wayspots and reviewed 9218 submissions, with an agreements rate of about 68%.
I'm trying to get a particular mural to be approved, but it constantly keeps being rejected by being on private property. Said mural is this:
Main photo
Support photo:
Photosphere is present: https://www.google.com/maps/@46.2194988,10.1567977,3a,90y,352.78h,94.64t,7.4r/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sAF1QipOvf8wN5z_No7pDIThRHXcvzAIvJhMe9dFSyi_T!2e10!3e12!7i5376!8i2688
Now: according to Ingress AMA in November 2019, “Regardless of any other criteria, if a nomination doesn’t have pedestrian access it is not eligible.” Height is not something that is explicitly considered. If you can safely reach the wall a mural is painted on, but the mural is 20 feet off the ground, that is fine.
As you can see on the support image, the mural is on a balcony, but the wall it was depicted on is freely and safely accessible by public land, so, from my POV, it shouldn't be rejected because of private property.
Moreover, on the left of the door, there are 3 mailboxes, supporting the fact that house is a multifamiliar condominium: for this additional reason, this shouldn't be rejected as being a private property, because this should only concern single-family properties.
What do you think? Is this murals eligible or not?
Comments
The mural itself seems to be on the private balcony of a single-family apartment. While anything that's located on the common area (courtyard, staircase, communal lobby, facade etc.) of multi-family residences is actually eligible, this would be ineligible IMO.
This appears to be on a private residence, so I believe it is ineligible.
It's on a private balcony and not in a common area. So it was correctly rejected.
Where is the difference with or without a balcony? Height should not be considered while reviewing nominations and the wall it is depicted on is touchable from public land.
Moreover, there are 3 mailboxes on the wall, so this is not a single-familiar house (Did you actually read my post? :/ )
In other words: would the absence of that balcony change the way we could access this submission? I think not: we would access this in the same way we would access any other murals without a balcony
If the balcony is a common area for all the apartments in the building, you need to prove that for reviewers.
As it is, rejection seems correct.
The "vertical distance doesn't matter" rule is with respect to pedestrian access specifically. If the nomination is physically located within a private living space, it must be denied for private residential property. It's the same as if it were on a wall in a dining room of an apartment: it wouldn't be eligible even if the dining room was located above a publicly accessible store.
Blah blah blah... It's a beautiful religious mural not on a single family home. If this was a mural on a church wall with single family homes right next to it. It would have been accepted separately from the church. If I was a tourist walking around there it would be a beautiful and interesting find. Just my opinion... Besides LMSchiano you made good points. I'm convinced.
I have seen well known artists have their work displayed outside their homes and it gets accepted... Probably because the artist is well-known
Who knows
But it is on the premises of a single-family home. The balcony belongs to an apartment, it's not a common area.
If it was on a church wall, it wouldn't be on residential property, so your point is irrelevant.
If you're convinced by OP's argument, please stop reviewing and re-read the criteria.
One of the main reasons why Niantic let us review is because we're not robots. We're all human beings with different opinions and interest. This is probably where that "grey area" fall in place. When something falls in the rejection criteria but also has some other value a human would deem acceptable. Not everything is clear cut black or white.
We are all explorers.
When something falls under one of the rejection criteria, it is to be rejected. End of story.
No, not everything is clear-cut black or white This one is, though.
There are a few things that make nominations automatically ineligible. Being on the premises of a single-family home is one of these. It does not matter how unique, interesting or culturally important the object is, if it's on PRP, it should be rejected (and if it somehow gets accepted, it will be removed if reported.
There are plenty of nominations in a "grey area" where the reviewer has a decision to make. This is not one of those.
Just FYI: I'm one of those 8 and I never played Ingress.
I'm one of the disagrees as well, and like @Nadiwereb-PGO, you'll also note my PGO tag on my name. You're getting many disagreements because the nomination is clearly on private residential property, and suggesting that it should be accepted is simply wrong and goes against the guidelines you were supposed to have read and understood when you first started using Wayfarer (see below for the rejection criteria link)
I would see those disagreements as the community trying to help you realise that you're mistaken, not as a sign of toxicity.
Art the artists put up on the property of their single family home should not be accepted and should be submitted for removal if it snuck through. It doesn't matter if the home owner is the artist and they want a stop there.
Just to be clear: that is not my home and I'm not trying to make home pokestops/portals for anyone.
Anyway, I'm still convinced that this mural can be accessed without invading any private property, because you can touch the wall it's depicted by public soil.
p.s.: If you look better, you can guess the balcony was made AFTER the creation of the mural art: probably this is the result of some illegal addition/urbanisation abuse because there is no way someone could fagocitate a religious mural into a balcony.