The Wayspot was rejected because it’s on private residential property, but it’s visible on Google Street View. Why was it still rejected?
I shared the Google Street View location, which shows a spacious and open area accessible by personal vehicles such as bicycles. It is safe and clearly not private residential property.
What is the building behind that statue used for?
The access for pedestrians need to be to the actual location of the POI, i.e., that you can walk up and touch it. Being able to /see/ the POI or being able to spin it is not sufficient.
If the POI is on SFPRP (single-family private residential property), including the outside boundary, it is not suitable to be a wayspot.
Although the private residence is located behind the statue, the statue itself is placed in front of the gate on the public sidewalk beside the street and is fully accessible. I can approach and touch it without any obstacles.
To do this, it looks like you have to trespass. The gate and the wall are not necessarily the external boundary of the private space. For example, in the USA, there is often property fence, then grass, then the sidewalk then more grass then the road. Everything up to the sidewalk - including the grass outside the fence - is normally treated as private property.
Here. those statues or not on a pavement that people walk on. To either side, the ground has pots and plants on it, clearly marking this space as private in practice even if not in principle.
(I’m not sure that even with the SFPRP issue that these would be suitable as wayspots, as they look like garden decorations.)
Please review the actual photo. The statue is clearly situated in a public area, fully accessible to everyone, and not within private residential property.
I looked at the google streetview images. You have only included the very top edge of the main photo, but it looks like the submission is of one of the two-foot-high statues either side of the gate. Which are on private property. You cannot walk along the pavement (sidewalk) to reach them as there is no pedestrian space against the edge of the road.
Almost every reviewer will consider everything up to the edge of the road at this location to be private property, which includes all of the paved brick surface. Anyone who does otherwise is not applying the rules properly.
I don’t deny that this is private property, but the statue itself is placed in a spot that is easily accessible to pedestrians. The homeowner has even placed flowerpots on the sidewalk to occupy more space, but their actual private property is clearly behind the wall and the gate. The statue stands outside, in a public, walkable area.
Not local so may be UK specific but if we assume that the statues have been placed by the residence then they must place them on his private land.
In the UK the gates are usually classed as the boundary but you would not be able to place the statues / planters on public land.
I think there is a mis-understanding between…
Please read this clarification:
Even if it can be touched from the sidewalk, it is still considered SFPRP and ineligible.
If the legal standards of the UK are being applied here, then I have nothing further to explain. My location is not in the UK. Here, sidewalks in front of private houses are often encroached upon by homeowners as if they were personal property, but in reality they are public spaces. Goodbye.
I’m back. It seems the discussion is progressing.
Please, since we’re talking, don’t take this kind of attitude where you refuse to listen to the other person’s opinion.
It’s important to note that you yourself recognize this location is part of a single-family home’s property. Therefore, please read the criteria @cyndiepooh outlined. Even if it’s a place freely accessible from outside, it’s stipulated that areas within the SFPRP boundaries must not be accepted. This is an absolute rule set by Niantic.
This is why I mentioned it but it seems strange that you are able to completely block the pavement outside of your property without recourse.
I do not see whether the original rejection was by eMiLy (machine learning) or Reviewers.
If it was reviewers then “Local” reviewers also disagreed with you.
You have no need to convince me, I will not be reviewing it but it has been rejected twice including the appeal so if you want it to be approved evidence that this area is public (and not just accessible) will need to be provided. Just saying so is not evidence.
You have made it clear that you are not wanting any suggestion that goes against your opinion so I will make this my last reply.
Good luck.
I don’t think anyone stopped to say Hello and Welcome @Kanh
I decided to look back on streetview over a number of years.
What I could see was that the paving blocks on this strip were the same on the properties on the other side of the street and then on properties beyond this one.
This is what I would expect to see on public land. That a single authority is responsible for the laying and upkeep of that area. So to me it feels as though it is public space.
It also looks like over time this property has put more and more items on that public land to interfere with its use as a public space and “claim” it as their own.
I am not familiar with the culture and how acceptable this practice is.
It could be considered Temporary if the potential is there for it to be removed. But they have been there for many years
Finally I have a question as to how distinctive these are. They can be bought as garden ornaments and seem to be mass produced. So I have questions over whether these are worthy of being a wayspot.
I appreciate you were probably expecting a simple answer buti dDont think there is one. There are a number of reasons that raise doubts so that is why it may fail.
Hey, a local Vietnamese here! I am quite late to the discussion so pardon my lateness in this discussion.
I have encountered a lot of similar Statue like this and I would like to give my two cents that, it is a correct “private property” rejection.
Sure, they are public for everyone to touch, and they are not on the wall, but for “Private home” statue, they are putting there as an extra space, and I have seen a lot of thing similar like this like dog statue (google image as example)
When it is a business though, I would approve this submission. For private home? It is an excessive space as a decoration put in front of pillars or door.
I had some ideas that is similar to you, like a group of stone chairs and a stone table, that would be a great place to socialize. They are outside of private house, however I wouldn’t bring myself to post those(and in this case, the lion statue) due to “Private property” own this object.
Welcome to Vietnam.
When I was doing the internship, there is 1km walking to my company that people claiming public pedestrian zone to sell stuff/put stuff there to save space. I have to walk up, then walk down to the street, then walk up, then walk down,… You get the idea.
Really sorry for the THIRD reply but seeing the discussion in full discussion, I like to respond to some of them.
Eh, it is actually the opposite, they are putting in front of anyone’s house, business, or hotel’s as these lions are symbols of public authorities and merchants, power and material prosperity. It is a cultural thing in here.
I understand the cultural relevance in terms of symbolism, but I am keen to understand are they considered as art ? And are they likely to be mass produced?
It is a good question, they are usually made by stone caving, and they are really hard to mass produced. For a statue that is like half of a normal body height, all stone carving is doing by hand with the help of the saw and not the automatic progress:
It is mostly put in some really luxury house or store(Those are really REALLY expensive that I wouldn’t consider it as mass produced in my opinion, those stuff cost like half a normally year salary here). I think I have seen a grand total of zero lion statue in the radius of 20km town.
They are also like art, with different shape and form. There are also a lot of animal statue like dragon/dog as the most common beside lion.
