SFPRP not removed

Wayspot Appeals
1

When submitting a Wayspot Appeal, make sure to include as much of the following information as possible:

  • Wayspot Title: Historischer Zufahrtbogen aus 1755
  • Location (lat/lon): 50.881704,6.066283
  • City: Kerkrade
  • Country: The Netherlands
  • Screenshot of the Rejection Email (do not include your personal information):
  • image
    image724Ă—675 44.3 KB
  • Additional Information (if any):
    • Official Dutch database of properties shows it is SFPRP: BAG Viewer

And streetview as well: Google Maps

2

The property is not open to the public, but is it SFPR? It looks like the historic gate is used by a few houses.

3

The official database shows the boundaries, which includes the gate. Right of passage does not change the property being SFPRP.

4

Don’t think that this is the case. If you look at the “kadastrale” view which shows the boundaries of the property, you see that the gate is on a different property than the building itself. So the building itself crosses property lines. In my view this is a communal area.

5

It is not, as you can see below, where in red you see the gate and the whole building marked in blue:

image
image1002Ă—727 148 KB

6

It is, the building is on kadaster area 1672, the gate 1673:

kadaster
kadaster1214Ă—938 104 KB

7

That is the path, not the gate itself, which is part of the building as shown in the aerial view above. But thanks for your input, it is up to staff to judge this.

8

Agree, certainly not up to me, just wanted to make clear that there may be opposing views.

For those who want to know what this is all about, it is an old gate, dating 1755

gate
gate1554Ă—1041 456 KB

9

I find this curious, as the gateway is part of the SFPRP boundary but also part of an easement.

For fields, which are part of farmland, the UK has PROWs which legally cross the edges of the fields. The easement overrides the “no farmland” rule, so this could be similar.

10

It goes down to who owns it. Even if the wall encroaches on PROW by 1mm, it is still considered private property for all intents and purposes. I am working on the assertian that this is SFPRP and the GIS data is accurate, and should be removed.

11

A nearby wayspot Hexe auf Dach (50.881352,6.066779) is much more obviously on SFPRP, as it is on the chimney stack of a detached house.

12

I’m foreign, so take this with a lot of grains of salt, but… is that overlay meant to be property lines? If so, it would appear that this building is made up of multiple properties. If that’s true, it could be interpreted that this building is actually a multi-family residential building, like an American apartment building or condo complex.

In those, the unfenced outdoor areas, including (in cases where they aren’t fenced in) the exterior walls of the buildings themselves, are explicitly common areas, and are therefore not covered under the SFPRP rule; about a third of my approved stops are in such areas.

I’ve also seen cases where a residence and a business would vertically overlap (located in a two story building), and seen those also approved (though I haven’t submitted such stops myself).

13

Indeed

14

It’s gone now :slightly_smiling_face:

15

Wow, that was fast

16

That is what you call a row house: Terraced house - Wikipedia

Very common in Europe each of the properties is still sfprp, as they are owner of that part of the facade. Good that you bring it up and it can be confusing, but as the official site shows this is SFPRP

17

Bumping this as it appears to have been missed by staff

18

Thanks for the appeal, @iFrankmans , we looked at this Wayspot again and decided that it doesn’t meet our requirements for removal.