I am starting to wonder whether the use of the word “gate” or “gates” in the title and / or description is acting as a red flag to ML, rather than anything to do with the photos, given the most recent four rejections at ML Decision > Historic Iron Gates > 3/5 rejected - #17 by Liverlouike15 as well?
Maybe I need to remove any reference to entrance gate / gates and just refer to “ironwork” instead?
Well number of interesting things. \ @Liverlouike15 - and please note these are my views.
You will need to convince the system that it ain’t an entrance to a private residence. Just saying. That house has its drive way in Mill Paddock and the gateway is on Caldecott. There is little proof it is not used from google view. and it is part of the residence fence line. Niantic says no
Regarding the supporting evidence. Your document on “historic gates” contains enough words to be wary. Probably. with reasonable confidence, presumably etc etc is not confidence building. The page referred to talks to figure 14 (Top of page 4 - St Johns Almhouses) which when reviewed has no relevance to figure 17 (the gates in question). Supporting figure 18 has been removed for copyright purpose (confidence sinks)
Re reading the paragraph has the opening words “Probably Early Gate” for this ironwork so even it is clutching at straws knowing there is little evidence.
History also tells us that nearly a million tons of wrought iron fencing was cut down for the second world war (as you have noted in your other thread). Since that time some of the railings were replaced. Note the word some. The reason why the author/s of that document use words such as probable and presumably is there is no evidence that these alledged “historic” gates were not replacements. The only railings I would consider (I did not say accept) are those that are grade I or II listed with evidence provided and meet the rest of the criteria
On this basis. In my view it was rightly rejected for private property. And if I had reviewed it I would also have failed it as there is little to no evidence of anything historic. Sure interesting wrought iron work. But yeah not enough evidence or anything convincing for that.
Sorry to say… Thanks for sharing. Great questions. And you know - If you have evidence that differs from my view then do share please. Always good to learn 
Good luck!!!
Further to this and see my post to your other thread where I say the following.
“”"The PDF document was used to help create this webpage Historic Ironwork - Abingdon on Thames Town Council – it is important to click on the Long description… But here is the kicker… And read the article. None of your nominations here - including the one accepted can be reliably marked as pre1900 or none of them are listed (graded listings anywhere)
you have used a source article that was used to create the final website (it was the discovery document for the final publication). That is fully publically accessible on the Abingdon website - see link …“”
So not only is the gate probably on private residence. The documented evidence has been fine tuned with the local historians calling out only some items as reliable pre 1900. While those pieces can be nominated don’t call anything out as listed unless the grade I or II is also added.
Hint at least two of the items on the webpage are listed. Remember even if listed if the item/poi is on private property or is lived in - it will fail criteria. Use the webpage and it has a host of stuff you can probably nominate if not already nominated. I can see stuff I WANT to nominate… Good luck
Thank you for your reply.
Immediately behind the gate is a stream with a bridge over it before there is a residential garden, so I am not sure that it is a residential structure, but I can see that it is going to be very difficult to prove that it isn’t under these circumstances.
I asked the author of the .pdf for more specific information about the gates and he alluded to it being “early nineteenth century”, but no concrete evidence to back it up. He mentioned looking at early maps, but from experience it is usually difficult to see such details on them.
I have made a beeline for listed buildings, but I find that many of them are now in the dreaded single residential use that you warn of. Many of the listings are also bunched together in the town centre, close to existing wayspots. However, I have found a listed bridge and a listed property that is still in non-residential use that are far enough from other wayspots.
yes that is generally the problem. There is evidence a gate existed here at X date But what they cannot prove is if the structure is from that date. Rock - hard place. And even if a map showed a gate there it is showing that something existed not what it looked like, when made and made of what. So yeah. Agree little help
Re residential. It matters not that it is a residential garden or structure. The general rule is the land is also part of the residence - including the fence/hedge/wall/gateway (if existing) etc… My apologies for creating a focus on residential structure.
Good luck.
Both the listed bridge and listed restaurant (former place of worship) were accepted as wayspots.
I have another listed building to nominate: almshouses, which are in multiple residential occupancy and I note that there are three other almshouses in town that are already wayspots.
