On my last nomination walk I visitied a couple of villages that were low on wayspots/had none and I came accross this queen victoria postbox, but here’s the annoying thing is that if I nominated the postbox it would’ve got declined because there isn’t an official or proper path to it and in these types of villages in england there is rarely any actual path/sidewalk as you wouldn’t see a car that often, so i had to occupy that cell with a much boring overgrown noticeboard.
The rules for nominating is based of american law which obviously doesn’t make sense in other parts of the world. It just seems a bit daft to me. I know why it’s like that but in other places in the world things that are acceptable in there country won’t be acceptable in america because of different laws.
I wouldn’t say the rules are based on “American law“. I travel a lot around many countries in the world, in most larger cities in many countries have sidewalks/pavements of some sort, and most rural areas do not. That is the same in the US as well.
Yeah, it sucks when that happens. I have to ask though, are reviewers in the UK really that strict? Because in Italy this would pass with no problem, we know countryside = less traffic
Thinking about it now reviewers will probably accept it, but then somebody will report it for being unsafe and then it’ll get removed. Like one of my other nominations
It’s a shared right of way. The existence of the proposed wayspot shows that it is meant to be accessed by pedestrians. Stress that in your supporting evidence.
Thinking about it now human reviewers would’ve accepted it (and rightly so). It doesn’t matter now though as that noticeboard that i got accepted is in the same cell as that vr post box would’ve been in.
See, I wouldn’t have an issue with pedestrian access as it’s obviously intended to be accessed by pedestrians and there is a verge there that can be stood on.
The thing is that it’s embedded in someone’s garden wall, and the rules on private residential property would seemingly make it ineligible for that reason.
And that’s another thing. If the object is intended for the public to use than that rejction criteria shouldn’t be used for it as the public go there all the time making it publicly accessible, i would see it as the private property goes behind the post box meaning that it’s not there property as they don’t own it or maintain it, the royal mail does.
Well this is the argument. IMO, a wall box is a legally distinct entity from the property surrounding it - legally it’s the responsibility of Royal Mail and the public has a right to access it. That’s different from (say) a little free library at the edge of someone’s garden where there isn’t a legal distinction of ownership and there right of access is only implied and not explicit.
Others disagree however, so human reviewers may or may not accept it.
I ain’t that strict if it looks safe and can see it be walked over on a number of occasions I would normal say yes to it but that me I suggest one that was on the other side of a river and because it had a food bath and I knew you could reach it by spinning it which I did say it got accepted and is a poke stop now
