Just thought I would highlight this review I recently received. In the US, one popular type of gravestone as of late have been benches. However, these are gravesites, and the bench style was most likely chosen so that the mourners could sit at the site while visiting.
While memorial benches may not be eligible, these that are actually gravestones I would say for sure are not eligible.
Oh wow… that’s really poor taste by the submitter.
I can absolutely see why someone would submit a memorial bench in a park or by a river - they may personally see it as significant and not realise reviewers wouldn’t agree.
But submitting what looks like a fairly recent headstone fashioned as a bench is very different. In my culture, standing on a grave is considered incredibly disrespectful and this bench would mean sitting on one - which is absolutely fine for close family and friends as per the design but not for anyone else!!
I’m fine with the idea of PoIs in graveyards in some cases but not this.
I mean, even if it were a memorial bench, with that description I’d likely reject it for failure to assert significance of the people memorialized, unless there was a lot to the supporting information not shown here.
I’m ok with the things that have been laid out as possibly being eligible at cemeteries and graveyards, like a veterans memorial monument, crosses, chapels, etc, but a gravesite, well, it would have to be for someone of historic/cultural significance. This just seems like it’s for a couple that lived in the area.
I think there may have been a couple of gravestones like this already approved here, but didn’t save the info. Still might report for abuse, as just find it in bad taste to nominate bench-style gravestones like this.
Well, I’m glad I did send in an abuse report without remembering the other Wayspot I saw. They ended up removing 16 ineligible Wayspots in this cemetery!
Oh, and I did check the Intel map for these, but they were added after the split it would seem. Glad I was able to get them removed.