Pedestrian access.
On the countryside of beautiful Denmark a lot of landmarks are situated. There are no sidewalks on the tiny country road, perhaps some gravel on the side, or grass. Pedestrian and bikers are allowed to walk by the left side and bike on the right side of the road. so a monument located by the side of cette country road may not have a sidewalk, but it has legal pedestrian access.
so there has been some debate in tiny Denmark if these monuments - that are portals should remain, or be removed.
Some have already been removed. Beautiful monuments, that are legally accessible by foot, and definately top knotch tourist visits worth, but without a regular sidewalk, because it is on the countryside - rural areas - where no sidewalks exist.
And the example in OPR help is a sign in the middle of a larger road, not by the side of a small country road.
so my question is -
pedestrian access? Yes? No?
Also please clarify in OPR help section.
Comments
They have clarified as much as they can
"Q27: **** Preston - When it comes to ""Safe Pedestrian Access"" - There seems to be discrepancies between the definition for locations in Europe vs North America. In North America, there are these nice sidewalks, traffic signs, and such that makes an obvious ""Safe Passage"". In many places in Europe there are many streets where there aren't many paths dedicated to Pedestrian access. [..] Should there be different criteria for different regions based on local guidelines and traditions that the community follows, or should there be a global criteria where ""Safe Pedestrian Access"" is the same?"
A27: It would be impossible to set a specific global requirement. We also have to default to local municipalities and their laws. What is required in Thailand for a pedestrian offset may not be required in England. But both are deemed safe by local laws. So there is essentially different criteria and why people of a region and familiar with places review submissions.
As you can see they have said its up to individual local reviewers to clarify what is safe, however if a portal is reported as unsafe and it looks unsafe they will remove it as its best to err on the side if saftey. Then agents of the local area can request the portal be reinstated and quote the relevant local information that confirms its safe access
This generalized discussion might be better suited for subforum "Misc Portal Appeals Discussion" as it has little to do with OPR, but rather removal of existing portals.
Furthermore I believe OP would be better off submitting invalid removal reports under "Portal Appeals" to better bring context to the discussion via individual cases, and hopefully resolve some of the specific cases OP certainly has in mind.