Please help nomination is ineligible
Smokie714-PGO
Posts: 3 ✭✭
I’m really upset after months of waiting and using my upgrade my nomination is denied for a BS reason “appears to be on private property”. This is a free little library new to the neighborhood from the pictures you could clearly see it’s on the sidewalk. Not to mention most free little libraries are on private property because they are put in place by the home owners. Since when are sidewalks private property. I’m very upset after reviewing close to 500 nomination don’t understand how this nomination was denied for that reason. Maybe one of you could shed some light and give any tips.
Comments
Niantic has stated that PRP extends to the property line as it's locally understood, including anything located on the exterior walls or fences.
Where the property line ends depends on local laws, regulations and customs. In some areas may reach the curb and include any sidewalk present. This is what reviewers default to when there isn't a clear indication of property lines, as in the case of the neighborhood in your picture.
Easements are to be treated as part of the neighboring property since homeowners is required to maintain the easement, which includes clearing the sidewalks of snow and leaves and mowing the grass.
This is the correct rejection. Niantic has put out many times that even if its just infront of the house (aka by the sidewalk) it will be considered as private residential property.
Source?
All they ever said is that anything ON single family private residential property (including right-of-way), or on the wall or fence, is to be rejected. They never said it extends all the way to the street, or includes sidewalks or anything else between the property and the street, that is not officially part of the property. If it is not part of a private property, it cannot be considered a right-of-way. Then it is just public space.
@Lechu1730-PGO's statement is entirely correct.
hete is the link to the last time niantic mentioned something. Your welcome
That comment literally says "ON private residential property" 2 times. There is nothing there about extending all the way to the street.
It talks about whether a little free library on someones prp is considered public or private by local law.
An example from LA: Under the assumption that these rules are more or less similar in other parts of California, I'd consider this little free library to be on public property.
I'd suggest incorporating this or similar information in your supplemental info in your resubmission.
Says “reviewers should avoid trying to determine wether those locations are public or private based on local laws”. This is essentially saying don’t try to bring local laws in to get easements to be acceptable. Its saying if its infront or around a private home its ineligible
In the UK, that would be clearly public property, because it is the other side of the pavement. The council maintains those areas, not the home owners. This would be perfectly fine and is often the location of things like postboxes or community notice boards which are regularly accepted here.
If it was on the left hand side of the pavement based on the support picture then I'd say private property, but since it is on the right hand side between the pavement and the road, it is fine.
I do think that the supporting information can be written better. Here is where you'd reference any community project that was responsible for putting it here, or the benefit to local children. You could mention when and how it was installed. Writing that it is great and should be accepted is not necessary and sometimes puts reviewers off.
No it is not. It is saying if it is ON someone's PRP, it is ineligible. Even if there is public right-of-way on the PRP.
A little free library that is located ON the PRP, should be considered private. Even if the public is allowed and expected to interact with it, it should still be considered PRP, even if the local law would say otherwise.
If it is located outside of the PRP (and not attached to the wall or fence of the PRP), it should be okay. Doesn't matter if it is in front of or next to a PRP.
Niantic's definition of private property does not necessarily align with local governments. They have stated that for purposes of reviewing, the **** of land between the sidewalk and the street, for example, is to be considered private property even if the land is technically city property. This also creates a standard that can be used by Wayfarers regardless of city, state, or country.
Again, source?
If you claim Niantic has said something, provide a quote or link, so it can be verified. Otherwise it is just a baseless claim.
Bruh 🤦🏻 i gave you the source! They said that above in the picture! Literally says dont try to use local laws (aka easements for your terrible reading comprehension) to make things close to private property eligible. If its in the easement it is not eligible. If its on the other side of the fence next to a prp it is not eligible. If its on prp its not eligible. What cant you understand
Maybe @NianticCasey-ING can come in to clarify this for everyones sanity
Easement: a right to cross or otherwise use someone else's land for a specified purpose.
Someone else's land.
NOT: Public property next to someone's land.
They talk about local laws to say things on someone else's land are ineligible, even if those locations have right-of-way. Aka, if people have the right to be there, on someone else's land.
An easement is a nonpossessory right to use and/or enter onto the real property of another without possessing it. It is "best typified in the right of way which one landowner, A, may enjoy over the land of another, B".
I have never voted that something on a public grass verge is ineligible due to private property and I'm not going to start based on an informal forum topic. Niantic can clarify in an AMA and update criteria and I'll of course change how I vote, but not until then.
In the UK, there are grass verges like the one in the submission in most suburban areas, between the pavement and the road, and sometimes between the property line and the pavement too. Residents don't need to care for them unless they want to - the council come and mow them or sometimes plant trees. They are not mentioned in the deeds of the properties. If there is a water leak in that area, the homeowner is not charged. Someone visiting another house might park there and you could not reasonably tell them to move. For all these reasons, and more, it is public land! So there is no sense in calling these areas private when they are not!
Inside my fence is private. Outside my fence is public. Simple. Why does it have to be more complicated than that?
Because not all homes have fences...
In my city sidewalks are public areas and most houses have walls or fences to demarcate the property line, but in most gated communities front yard fences are forbidden and the property line extends to the curb.
Fence, or other boundary, of course. Hedge, edging, stones, whatever. It's almost always really obvious
Property lines are never obvious in many areas of the world, including most of the US. And if there is any question that something is on private residential property, we are suppose to reject the nomination.
I agree, but there are also many areas in the world where property lines are obvious. And in those areas, we should not reject nominations for being on private residential property or farm, when they clearly aren't.
Here is what to ask yourself... Did a resident put up the little free library on the plot of land that they maintain? If is yes (wich this nomination is) then its on PRP and should be rejected. There should not be a home behind the library.
If the library is in a common area it's more than likely put up by a community.
These LFL are great things for local communities but to be honest the majority of them will be on PRP.
These areas (literally called an easement) is what is not eligible. When niantic says dont look into local lws they mean exactly this 🤦🏻 Some dense people here
The only way to keep one's sanity in this thread is to... I guess not participate.
While all little free libraries sadly get the PRP ****, stobie pole art is extremely popular with certain councils in South Australia and are often right in front of houses. They get approved without a hitch. And don't get me started with a certain peculiar type of disk!
Private residential property used to only refer to instances where a nomination would encourage people to walk on the end of a private driveway, but then you had the whole 40m rule ruling, yeah this and that, etcetera.
Referring to one particular post and answer that the nomination was of a Venerable Shrine of St Michael the Archangel on a private residential property's fence:
A sidewalk does not encourage people to go onto private property. OP's example looks nice and in a better location than most other little free libraries I come across. Essentially, if I was mindlessly walking on a sidewalk footpath and a homeowner fired a bullet at me or called the cops because I was walking in front of their house checking out what was in the Street Library, that's not trespassing, it's paranoia. Most homeowners co-arrange a little free library with their local councils to be put up anyway, and yet some get surprised and concerned when they see lots of people flocking to it.
The Niantic definition of PRP is always going to seem vague depending on one's level of comprehension. In my city, apartments are often considered PRP because most reviewers don't read the tagline of "single-family", so most nominations on apartment complexes are wasteful. Unfortunately, there is no clear answer, it is all a lottery of which reviewers you get, but odds are on the against side in this case.
You clearly have a wrong idea of what an easement is. I tried to explain it earlier in this thread.
I hope you aren't calling me or anyone else here dense? @NianticCasey-ING this thread is getting quite unfriendly, please can you intervene?
Read my original comment with screenshot of niantic’s comments on prp. That is the ruling of it. Not my fault no one wants to read it for what it is 🤦🏻🤦🏻
I agree it's very ambiguous since there's lots of LFL that are approved and existing, yet all of the ones I have submitted have been denied.
There is nothing in that or any other comment that says areas outside of prp should be considered prp.
The Niantic quote from @HaramDingo-ING literally says if it is accessible without entering a restricted area, it is acceptable.
You keep ignoring comments that prove you wrong, and twist other comments. Read everything again with an open mind, and realise that you are wrong.
This whole discussion is on if the free little library that is infront of a house is eligible or not. The answer is NO. The free little library is on an easement which is not eligible by any means. Its private residential property. Literally infront of a house 🤦🏻. I’m 100% correct. Local laws, regulations or zoning doesn’t matter if the part of property its on is owned by the city or not as niantic has said in the quote above to not look into local laws for situations as this as they will still be considered private residential property. Can’t say it anymore clear than that 🙃🙃
Again, your understanding of what an easement is, is wrong. When they talk about local laws, they talk about laws regarding area's inside the private residential property. Right-of-way. Right-of-way/easements are always part of a private residential property. The area in front of a private residential property is not an easement, unless it is actually part of the private residential property.
Let's say that a property (A) is not attached to any public road, but there is a road going from that property (A), across another property (B), to a public road. Then that road, on the other property (B), is an easement. It is a right-of-way, that the owner of the A property, is allowed to use to access their own property (A).
An area outside of a private property, in the public space, can never be an easement.
Inside a prp (or on the wall or fence), right-of-way or not: ineligible.
Outside a prp, in front of a prp or not: eligible.