Hello, I am curious to see how you would judge/think about this case.
In Sweden we do have allemansrätt which basically means the right to visit nature, in Lindesberg where I work there are alot of small bridges out in the river and small lake where you can bathe from in the summer and go out ice skating / fishing in the winter.
Another part of Allemansrätten is that when the county, municipality , state owns the ground so to speak, even if you pay and buy a bridge - it is public accessible to other and you have to write a contract with the county that you can put up a bridge and also that anyone can you it.
So my question is, if the ground belongs to the county/municipality and the bridge is not on private property would you accept?
(for reference, im not sure myself, the municipality have some owned bridges aswell).
For reference use this google street view, the whole roadside of bridges are owned by people but the ground is owned by the the county/municipality.
Thanks in advance for you comments.
1 Åstigen – Google Maps
I tried submitting something similar a while ago and both machine learning and the Niantic reviewer did not like it.
I don’t know much about this public right to roam but it seems like it is a bit complicated in this case since it’s so close to houses and tht seems to be an exemption? via Allemansrätten - Sweden's right of public access | Visit Sweden
Edit: forgot to include my submission
1 Like
There is also some guidelines från the municipality regarding bridges and the road in question where it is ok to roam and use the bridges. But because the stupid rule of not to close to anyones private housing it might be to near.
The issue with private property is specifically single-family private residential property (SFPRP). If something looks like it is on the land belonging to a house, you would need to show that it isn’t.
The rule is not that you can’t be too close to private housing and is not stupid. It is that you cannot have a POI on SFPRP (including the external boundary), but can have it on multi-family apartments etc
What is to close then? Here it might be 20-30 meters from the boundry of the house and the bridge. Is that to close? There is documents from the municipality saying that the whole roadside (and the waterfront) belongs to the municipality and not the private houses.
When I say stupid, I mostly mean confusing and not in my mind all clear.
Ineligible location: anything on the grounds of SFPRP, plus anything on or attached to the external boundary.
Something can be adjacent to the boundary and there is no issue.
For example, this historic survery marker is about 1cm separated from the wall of this SFPRP, but is not attached to it (this is the supporting image of an accepted submission)
1 Like
So we established that the bridges are not within the boundry of the SFPRP and the ground belongs to the municipality. The bridges are bought by private citizens but according to the allemansrätt everyone has to the right to use them and has to make a contract with the municipality. Or does the bridges also constitute the boundry of the SFPRP?
If the ground belongs to the municipality, then the bridge being put in by a private individual does not make that SFPRP. The boundary of the SFPRP will not be changed by the existence of the bridge.
You might have a visual problem if the bridge looks like it is on private property. If it does, but you are confident this isn’t the case, then make sure you clearly explain this in the supporting information and provide links for evidence.
1 Like
I am not sure if I am going to nominate or not. I just want to understand the rules and do it right 
but as I said, I sometimes find the rules confusing.
And if I nominate I do have evidence from the municipality and also the boundries
I have just looked at the google maps image and perhaps should have done so easier.
This is an unusual example, as - despite having read this thread before viewing the image - my first reaction was ‘private property’.
Although the roadway and the riverbank is municipal property, the decking (etc) is put in by an individual family for their own use. Since it is effectively adjacent to their property and looks private, I don’t think it is eligible as a submission. Even if not strictly SFPRP, it’s for private use only.
It wouldn’t be so much a rejection based on the SFPRP rule, but a rejection based on it not being eligible and reviewers would pick whichever rejection reason makes most sense to them, probably private property rejection. I can understand why this is confusing here even though the principle of SFPRP (that I stated above) is quite succinct.
1 Like
It is for everyones use because of the allemansrätt (freedom to roam and use), but as I said, that is why I asked the question.
