You are misunderstanding what safe access means for wayfarer.
If you have to stand in the road to be at the zero point of the POI, it is ineligible.
The thing is the road is also the everyday walking path for people which act as a defacto pavement and playground for kids playing on the street of the neighbourhood.
Irrelevant.
There is a remarkable milestone near me that is on a marked long-standing 20 mile trail.
It’s on a stretch of very quiet road with hedges and nowhere to stand except in the road.
It is not eligible due to the lack of safe access. I could take a photo of people walking down this road and it still would not be eligible.
The rejection criteria says without pedestrian access no extra wording about pavement requirement. Since the location is literally in front of apartment entrances people can use it to access their houses and walk it clearly shows the location has safe pedestrian access.
Ineligible location, place, or object
- Location is unsafe, without pedestrian access
Safe pedestrian access means you can stand there, staring at your phone, oblivious to everything around you, and not be at risk of being hit by a car.
Having to be in a roadway means this is not possible.
The thing is apartment access provides safe space on the opposite side of the road so a safe area still exists on location and the street is as wide as 2-2.5 cars. So you can stand safely on the location without worrying anything.
Scopely will now decide.
Irrelevant. Safe access is required at point zero, not nearby.
The problem is Wayfarer Support Rejection Criteria doesn’t indicate anything about point zero. It says location needs safe access and you can safely access and see the artwork in question.
I’m just explaining how Scopely Explore see it and putting it in my own words. It has always been the case, since day 1, that you have to be able to stand safely at the point of the POI. Scopely Explore have never said that safe access near to a POI is sufficient.
Then they should be more clear about it
“Location is unsafe, without pedestrian access” is what is stated in the Rejection Criteria.
The “Location” ie The location of the thing that you nominate.
Sounds clear to me that this does not mean “Somewhere safe where you can see the location”.
Unfortunately they are removed. As a person who knows the area and walks everyday on that path I still don’t believe that area is unsafe but I can do nothing about it.
Wow, that was fast! Arguing repeatedly not only didn’t get the point across, but it also drew attention from other Wayfarers to go report the ones that were already approved.
Thats probably why people stay away from Wayfarer and Community. I asked a question about automated duplicate rejection but instead of answering my original question the topic turned into street art, eligibility and got reported because I am trying to prove the street I use daily has safe access to someone from opposite side of the world who saw it on streetview.
There is a difference in “Safe in the real world” and “Safely Accessible within Wayfarer Criteria”.
You are also ignoring that the items where on the boundary of SFPRP and they where mis-placed to circumvent proximity rules.
Whether the duplicate rejection was correct does not change the fact they should not have been accepted in the 1st place.
I agree, there is a risk when you ask a question at this forum. We have seen people who really abused the system, and still considered it a good idea to ask questions at this forum.
And sometimes, like in your case, a genuine question can also have unexpected consequences.
Nowadays it is possible to report a wayspot from all over the world, so this risk really has increased. Especially if there are potential issues with safety and SFPRP.
Personally I do think the safe pedestrian access rule is too strict. I do think that sometimes not having a sidewalk should not be an issue.
You know that resubmitting spots that have been removed can be considered as abuse, right?
I started to 
this comment, but a safe shoulder is just as good as a safe sidewalk from my understanding.
These Graffiti are now appearing on the Map for a 3rd time 