Imagine a house that is very clearly a single family house that has an interesting art piece, like a mosaic tile or a marble sculpture. Normally this clearly falls under the SFPRP rejection criteria.
But what if the owners also run their business shop from their home, something like a grocery store or a beauty salon, and this business has visible signage? Does this still count as a SFPRP?
As an example, see this house at coordinates 39.19432, -9.06215
From the looks of it, the house was definitely built to be just a single family home, but at some point the owner converted the ground floor to run a mini market. Is the mosaic tile on the outer wall of the house an eligible wayspot in this case?
This is an interesting question. I would not submit it. But is it primarily a business or a residence? Here is a staff statement on another topic that i think has a similar issue:
In that scenario, the wayspot was explicitly linked to the business, e.g. being the B&B itself. In this scenario, the mural is seemingly entirely unrelated to the grocery store(?) underneath it. That might be a factor.
Objects high up on walls are considered to be accessible to pedestrians if you can get to (and touch) the wall that the object is on. You don’t have to be able to reach the actual POI.
Since the ground floor is a shop and is most definitely a business, this should be sufficient for this to be considered eligible. Whether reviewers see it that way is a different question.
I disagree. I lean towards being more restrictive. If this were a clean case of having a business on the first floor while all the living happens upstairs and all the buildings nearby operate the same way, then it wouldn’t be SFPRP. But if this is the only building in the area that has a business and all the others are SFPRP, I would reject on the basis of SFPRP.
For me this would be different than a business literally operated out of someone’s home (like someone who does hair or nails out of their own home) since the business is clearly separated and has a separate entrance etc. I think this would be ok for me
The building is not sfprp - its a business on the ground floor with a flat above. I have submitted a lot of cafes and restaurants with this particular setup, its entirely normal and I would never think of this being ineligible due to a flat above it.
I think it’s equivalent to a row of houses where there used to be shops below, which have mostly been converted to housing, but one shop remains and has housing above it. Shops with housing above it is definitely common in the UK and you can have a shop which is by itself either because it was the only shop there or is the only shop remaining.
In both cases, that shop would be eligible (if it or something connected to it met criteria).
reminder that the question was about the art which is on the level where the private home is since that seems to make a difference in some of your answers.
If that was a reply to me, I started with this: “Objects high up on walls are considered to be accessible to pedestrians if you can get to (and touch) the wall that the object is on. You don’t have to be able to reach the actual POI.”
It shouldn’t matter that the piece of wall the art is on contains a SFPRP behind it if you can get to the wall at ground level at a business.
I recently submitted this and had it accepted, as it is on an apartment block. The actual apartment behind the precise piece of wall that the engraving is on is SFPRP. I doubt anyone considered for a moment that the first floor being SFPRP could be a problem.
Ignore mosaic tile for the time being, this place is just one among others in my vicinity that follow this “residential property that also runs a business open to the public” pattern.
I’m more interested in whether the presence of something that opens this house to the general public - like this grocery store - overrides the SFPRP rejection rule
I think your answers are as above. Some people would see this as eligible and not a problem regarding SFPRP; some would see it as a problem.
To get an idea how Niantic see it, appeal one that gets rejected. Bear in mind that no review establishes a precedent, so if the review was accepted, this wouldn’t mean Niantic have said they are always OK, just that that one was OK.
It is very common in U.K. to have the ground floor as a commercial property with a flat or flats above.
So for example in many parts of U.K. whole high streets ( our shopping malls ) are like this, and may have historic society plaques or other features.
So I would not regard this as SFPRP. I can’t really determine much about the mosaic so I wouldn’t go further.
Yeah I was going to write something and then decided to have dinner first
We all agree a block of flats is not sfprp for external walls, communal grounds, and communal internal areas. A flat above a business is also not sfprp for the same reasons. A house which has its own grounds/garden/yard and doesn’t share the plot with another family is sfprp.
This flat shares the plot with a business. They cannot prevent people coming to the business door below their flat. They expect people to come and go, because the ground floor of their building is not their private property. That is my reasoning and I believe it is correct.
If people living above a business made everything on that building ineligible, I’d lose 50+% of the PoIs in my village. It’s completely normal here to have flats above businesses and the people living in those flats know that they will not be able to control who comes and goes around the business. Their private bit is the part inside their door.
You can make out shops at ground level but the art work is above that where there are flats.
Certainly in the U.K. we don’t have the same kind of zoning of property. So it is common certainly in older areas to have one property that is commercial on ground floor surrounded by solely residential - corner shops. Originally one corner might have a post office, another a bakers etc sprinkled over the area.
Yeah, I agree that a building that has a business in the ground floor and a single flat above doesn’t count as a SFPRP. My doubts in this case stem from this not being a building that was designed with that setup in mind, it was a single family house that was later repurposed to run a grocery shop on the ground floor. From this thread, I believe the majority agrees that that doesn’t make a difference.
How about this scenario:
Building with space for a shop below and a single flat above, originally built this way
Space for the shop is vacant
Flat is occupied
would this be a SFPRP? Technically it’s not open to the public, but this would still be two different spaces that share the same plot of land.
Oh yeah corner shops and post offices are so often on their own! I found 3 picture adds I did which show how it is here - all of these are business on the ground floor and flats above. The Age UK has 2 PoIs since it also has graffiti art on the side of the building which was separately nominated!
