I’m looking for clarification on how Wayfarer interprets public utility easements adjacent to single-family homes.
I nominated a permanent community trinket exchange that is mounted on a utility pole located in the public utility easement/right-of-way with safe pedestrian access from the sidewalk. It has now been rejected twice by the automated system and once on appeal as “private single family residential property.”
My confusion is that the published rejection criteria refer to single-family private residential property, while this installation is not located on my parcel. Nearby Little Free Libraries in similar locations have been accepted, so I’m trying to understand whether the AI is misclassifying the location or whether Wayfarer policy considers utility easements in front of homes to be private residential property regardless of legal ownership.
Never use existing wayspot as comparison. Some of this LFL might be incorrectly approved by inexperienced reviewer but it can be reported for removal if its on sfprp.
I will quote the last statement from the link :
“**Easements, “right-of-ways,” and sidewalks are too broad to make a global statement on, but the guidance is the same as above - if it is part of a private residence, it is ineligible.”
If you think this is still eligible, you need to resubmit with more evidence
Hello and Welcome @doctorrachel
It is a frustrating situation.
The reason there is a broad statement of rules is because there is a large amount of variation around the globe. These can then be followed and applied to the different situations.
The Automatic System (nickname Emily) that assesses and either rejects or passes to humans will make some false rejections. This forum is littered with posts about these. The appeals system is there to put it before human eyes.
Anything like this needs to present evidence that where the object is placed is not Single Family Private Residential Property (SFPRP), and is truly on public/common land. The sort of location that in many places you will need permission from another body to ensure that it doesn’t just get removed.
Each wayspot needs to be assessed individually.
If your understanding is that where this is located is owned by another body, then when you submit in the supplementary information you should supply evidence of that. This can be reference to an official record of property and if you use websubmit it can have an additional image to illustrate the record. It is not sufficient to say you have given permission, as wayfarer has to take into account what would happen if you no longer lived there. Another owner may not be as happy.
If you want to have comments on this specific nomination we will happily do so. But if having read the comments and checked it is SFPRP then I would look further afield, and the community here will be happy to help.
If “technically” comes up in the conversation, I don’t submit, and I don’t accept without an abundance of evidence. We have a fire hydrant, an electrical box, and a cable mount all located on our little plot of land, and being public utilities does not make the location in our front yard not SFPRP. From the things I have had in review, I don’t think the “automated process” rejects for SFPRP issues, fwiw, but we don’t know exactly what it looks for.
I suspect you are conflating public right-of-way with the ability of utility companies to place things on (single family residential) private property (SFPRP).
Being able to reach and access something from public property is not sufficient or even necessary.
The actual location of the POI must be safely accessible to people who are allowed to be there at that precise location, just not nearby. Also, that location cannot be on SFPRP, schools or other ineligible locations - including the outside edge of any external boundary.
Utility companies can have things in people’s front yards, but this doesn’t make those locations eligible.
