It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Sign In with Ingress Sign In with Pokémon GO
Location: 38°47'38.0"N 77°18'22.4"W https://goo.gl/maps/jhckqsCnif17jVWk7
I did not add a photosphere because the waypoint was easily viewable from street view.
Any constructive criticism would be much appreciated. Thank you.
Yes, its in a roundabout/traffic island. That is a 1* -> no safe pedestian access.
They literally use this as an example when you do your wayfairer test 😅 this isnt eligible like above mentioned.
You've also put supporting information about accessibility in the description, which is why you've also got description not relevant as a rejection reason.
You missed the sidewalks, btw.
This traffic circuit doesnt look for me like a very trafficed one. So I would only rate the pedestrian acces category low, but dont 1*-reject because of this. The "sidewalks" don't help here. They simply don't make sense and there is need for something like a crosswalk according to Niantics examples. Further its in the middle of a Single family home estate - so maybe the this is an editional rejection criteria the reviewers think about. So there are at least two plausible big rejection reasons touched, although not being fully hit.
So I would suggest, that its possible to have this wayspot approved, but its very very very unlikely....
If you wanna try this again and again ..... dont write public accessible in the description. That's for the supporting statement. Claim that there is not much traffic, because the small estate is a dead end. In the same reasoning you can call it "centre of the small estate" or something like that. This may water the possible private-property-rejectors a bit down ...
The sidewalks dont go to the object hence no pedestrian access. Its in the middlenof a road way.
so not only does it not have access you are saying to try and nominate it knowninf its in a single family home estate. Which is private residential property. This one should never get approved based off of those things
I am just trying to understand what you're explaining. Even though it has a sidewalk hugging the perimeter but no crosswalk, it is still considered not having pedestrian access?
And fyi, actually not a private residentnal property nor a single family estate. Not sure if that changes your position any.
Thank you for your input.
If its in the middle of a roadway so you have to “cross live traffic” to get to it. It is ruled as no access. It would need a sidewalk right upto it.
so if you had a sidewalk lead right upto it and it was on the side of the road then its eligible. But in the middle of a roundabout and a sidewalk on its side doesnt equal pedestrian access TO the object
I don't buy that as a sidewalk (certainly not a safe one). If it were a "real" sidewalk, it would be separated from the street by a curb. It looks to me like it's just part of how the roundabout is constructed, and it's not intended to be a place for pedestrians to walk.
The consensus seems to be that ths doesn't represent safe access. However, I would rate it differently. To me this seems to be a roundabout in what could be a gated community in the US w/o much traffic and under these circumstances I'd be way more lenient. I can only speak from a European perspective, but in my mind this situation seems to comparable to a random village in the countryside. It is quite common that there simply aren't any sidewalks, but frankly speaking the only threats are the occasional rabbit passing by and perhaps a tractor twice a day. I'd rate that with 3*
I would counter that statement by saying they literally put up walls around the road to avoid people just walking onto it. That a lone shows that it isnt safe. The same idea when they put walls to seperate a sidewalk on a bridge from traffic
From my point of view, these walls serve a decorative purpose. I had a look at the google maps link and it is one these communities next to a lake in VA. I don't really want to overindulge in cliches, but on these kind of streets you only encounter people with Labradors on their morning run. This isn't a real urban environment with sidewalks and I'd vote accordingly.
Please read the criteria. There needs to be clear pedestrian access to the poi. In this case the fountain.
The fountain is in the middle of a roundabout. Regardless of street activity its in the middle of the road with no side walk to the fountain. No access 1* rejection criteria.
the walls may be decorative but doesnt change the fact there isnt pedestrian access to the fountain.
I'm from Europe. It's simply totally different here. Looking at my small hometown we would have nearly no wayspots, if the reviewers would use the private property rule evrytime on full power. In historically grown old towns, nearly evry house in the town is a Single Family home, or at least evrything would be within the 40m-range of a Single Family Home. Even our church is less than 5m to the next Single Family Home. Totally applying the 40m-rule there would **** 90% of our wayspots. The reason is simple: the way our towns have grown for a long time made it way more chaotic than the drafting-table-cities from for example the US or Asia, that have totally separated large shopping districts, distinct residential districts, business districts and so on.
That's why I mentioned it in my comment very carefully. I'm aware, that this is a thing for reviewers in the US. So I mentioned it - so its rather alarming that I've been the first one who took a look at the map and figured out the possible PRP problem of nominations in this neighborhood, although no reviewer in my own country would even think about this, because its consent to neglect the additional 40m rule completly. We are a civilised county, we have strict gun laws and so on. We simply dont need these overcautious rule. And the US court ruling, that forced Niantic to the introduce the 40m rule, doesnt effect us, because its only for US 😉
Similar thing for existance of sidewalks. That's less a Us-Europe difference. It's more a city-village difference here in Europe. Small villages and old towns often dont have sidewalks. In my small town only the single main through road has sidewalks, because its the only street with a lot of traffic. Half of the town is coined during medieval ages - so the streets simply arent broad enough for sidewalks. Even two oncoming cars often have problems to pass each other. So our understanding of "safe pedestrian access is different, too. Because of the other circumstances there is another trafic education system: how to go safe through our streets is a significant part of the lessons in preschool and for 1st graders. Way around its by far harder to get a drivers license here than in the US. We must take lots of lessons with specialized driving teachers, do official theoretical and practical examinations. Not only learners permits ....
So @Jtronmoore-PGO now read my post again, and think about the way I meontioned my concerns with OPs nomination ;)
The only "40 meter rule" is the one that says that if a submission appears to be within 40 meters of single-family private residential property (PRP) , the reviewer must look carefully to determine whether or not it is on PRP. There is no rule against wayspots within 40 meters of PRP so long as they are not actually part of the PRP, no matter where you are in the world.
As for this nomination, there is nowhere to stand at the wayspot that isn't in the road. Therefore, it doesn't have pedestrian access. This is very different from a submission by the side of the road where there is a grassy area to stand that simply doesn't have a designated sidewalk.
Just out of curiosity about the traffic laws in Virginia.
When no crosswalk is available – whether marked or unmarked – pedestrians in Virginia are allowed to cross the road. However, they must yield the right-of-way to motorists.
Not that it really matters to me: People should be fine to safely reach the sidewalk
the private residential property rule is basically if its on someones property its a no-go. The church would be on its own property so its fine. Also I’m not from the States lol. Canada ❤️
I was merely pointing out that regardless of the sidewalk being next to the road the fact that the poi is in the middle of the roundabout means there is no access safely.
I understand there is a grey area if something is on the side of a very rural road it may qualify but for this very specific case it doesn’t make the cut
Yes, but the 40m rule is needed to reject the nomination of this thread with the PRP argument. the fountain itself is not on private property, only between private properties. So in Germany it would be fine. Only the pedestrian access would be discussed, and only because traffic circles are the textbook example given by Nia.
For people, who are grown up in very rural area without sidewalks, a dead end for only a dozen houses is by far enough safe pedestrian access to not reject it because of the absence of a sidewalk. It's exactly like at my parents house. A small street for ~20 houses. 1 car per 15min .....
So I would guess, that it would need ~3 attempts here to be approved. In the US it should be way harder. In exchange other stuff is harder for us - for example post offices are nearly impossible here, but that's another story-
At the moment I cant find a wording in the criteria for this. But the old one (at least the German one) stated, that reviewers shall be very critical for submissions in the range of 40m next to private property, and possibly reject because of this. So its a grey zone, where the reviewer can reject with the PRP argument, but doesnt have to. So in my church example the pro arguments for the church may outnumber these concerns but it basically could be effected.
As far as I know this rule was introduced, because the following is part of one of these strange judgements: it shall be as good as possible prevented, that the virtual objects of the games appear on private property, not only the wayspots. Deployed resonators can be 40m away from the portal; pokestop assigned spawnpoints are in a 40m range. So that's the point why this rule is (or was?) there, and why the rejection reason got the additional grey area within this 40m radius.
Niantic were sued in the US by a group people following the outbreak of PoGo mania a couple of years ago. The 40m guideline was brought in as part of the compromise settlement. Although it is only legally binding in the US, Niantic implemented it worldwide to avoid similar lawsuits in other countries.
As you said, it is not a ban on POIs within 40m of PRP, just that we should be more careful when reviewing them.
More here: https://www.theverge.com/2019/2/15/18226604/niantic-pokemon-go-lawsuit-changes-settlement-private-property-pokestop-gym
This is not a "you're supposed to walk by the low traffic rural road". Grey tiles in the roundabout are not meant for pedestrians. The paved trail outside of roundabout is. My 2€.
For consideration; there is a safe passage (according to Niantic criteria) to the area with flags and bench.
I live there so you're incorrect. Sorry.
Traffic laws are kinda unique in Virginia: https://community.wayfarer.nianticlabs.com/discussion/comment/56666#Comment_56666
Doesnt change the fact your nomination is in the middle of the road dude 🙄.
So, you're supposed to walk on the area with grey tiles (red arrow) instead of the paved black trail (green arrow)? For what purpose is that trail then? Why is there a painted pedestrian crossing marking safe crossing place outside the roundabout but not inside?
Sorry about possibly wrong terminology.
What you describe as a cross-walk is in fact a speed bump.
Thanks. That's my mistake.
What started as a little thought experiment made me further reconsider the original consensus ruling.
We learned that this is a suburban environment. The 'crosswalk' outside the roundabout is a speed bump, a measure further increasing the safety in this area. Someone mentioned this alcove with a bench and flagpole. This strongly suggests that the previously mentioned 'safety' walls are in fact decorative, because they fit the ensemble. Moreover, we can see on the attached photo that there are actually stairs leading from the alcove onto the roundabout. In addition, a crosswalk is not required to cross a street in Virginia. I concur that the sidewalk around the fountain isn't a 'proper' sidewalk, but it is slighty elevated by perhaps an inch, so there is something there.
In summary, this is not a real shared space, but IMO this situation is not as clear cut as previously indicated. Pedestrians seem to frequent this area more than one would expect. Nevertheless, I don't think this will pass, but if you want to resubmit, I'd show in the supporting picture the area between the alcove and the fountain.
"but if you want to resubmit, I'd show in the supporting picture the area between the alcove and the fountain."
That particular area that you took a screenshot of?