Live in Wayfarer 3.1 is a new set of acceptance criteria! Please browse the information in this category with caution as it is in reference to the previous review guidelines. To learn more about the new criteria, see here:

40 meter rule


After the lawsuit niantic made a rule.

Every submission needs to be more then 40 meter from prp.

But did they even look outside the USA.

Because if we need to apply the 40 meter rule in Europe then 95-99% of the waypoints need to be deleted.

Since that rule came in to place I got a lot of things rejected.

Now I'm wondering if niantic could make rules that are not so USA orientated.

Maybe make rules looking at the ruling of the continent.



  • NorthSeaPoet-INGNorthSeaPoet-ING Posts: 895 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I'm in agreement with this in regards to Europe.

    In the UK, we have a lot of houses that have no gardens and have an individual/single family living inside them. As they don't have gardens, trespassing isn't such an issue, unless a player is actually attempting to enter the house.

    Some of these houses, such as in my town, are next to or within 40 metres of eligible or acceptable wayspots or wayspot nominations, such as pubs, playgrounds, museums, and the like, and as such, the people living in these houses will be used to people walking past or standing outside whilst they chat or whatever else.

    In the case of Europe, I think it's a matter of people having commonsense and not being a disturbance or a nuisance and basically having a bit of decency and respect for the people in these houses.

    In my town, our only complaints have come from a jewellery shop in town centre when raids have been on (the gym is a clock attached to the shop and has been there presumably since before PoGo got launched) and people would gather by the shop window, to avoid blocking the pavement.

    The ruling of no wayspots within 40 metres of PRP/use more caution for nominations within 40 metres of PRP feels very America-centric, in my opinion, following those court cases. However, I definitely think caution should be exercised when reviewing any nomination, as some might be near schools or care homes or other places where groups gathering could cause some level of alarm and distress for others that live in that area.

  • TheFarix-PGOTheFarix-PGO Posts: 5,063 ✭✭✭✭✭

    That is a great mischaracterization of what the guidelines says. The guidelines stated that any nominations that is within 40 meters from private residential property is to receive greater scrutiny to ensure that it is not appear to be on said private property or that it will not cause a player to trespass while playing at the Wayspot. Because of widespread abuse (people painting mural on their garage doors or fences or art at their property line) and the fact that reviewers where still accepting them, Niantic added all mounted or free-standing murals, paintings, fountains, sculptures and play areas as categorically ineligible. I don't know how many times I've had to argue with someone from Spain or Brazil that something on the outside wall of a house or privacy wall was still private residential property.

    As for why this applies world wide is simple. Niantic doesn't want to have a different set of Wayspot guidelines for different regions of the world. Their should not be a different set of guidelines for just the US, one for UK, one for the rest of Europe, one for Africa, one for Brazil, one for Japan, etc. This will only add confusion over conflicting between the different guidelines and be an endless source of complains about why one guideline applies only in a certain country or region but not everywhere else.

  • NorthSeaPoet-INGNorthSeaPoet-ING Posts: 895 ✭✭✭✭✭

    The first one is definitely the most logical/sensible approach.

    The second and third ones seem quite contradictory though I do understand the third one, since some mhrals/fountains/sculptures could easily be on PRP.

  • dartfreak170-PGOdartfreak170-PGO Posts: 1 ✭✭

    This is what I mean. They are not consistent with what they are saying. So a lot of people think: it's within 40 meters of a home so I'll reject it

    Just make it not on prp and that's fine. It's also a more clear rule.

  • PoMaQue-PGOPoMaQue-PGO Posts: 252 ✭✭✭✭

    And there are plenty of people who consider PRP OK, as long as you do not need to trespass on the property.

    "I can access it from the sidewalk, so it's fine." 😶

  • grendelwulf-INGgrendelwulf-ING Posts: 301 ✭✭✭✭

    It's called CYA. Niantic has a lot of money from Pokemon Go and if there's one thing we know, Lawyers love other people's money.

  • Hydracyan-INGHydracyan-ING Posts: 130 ✭✭✭

    That's wrong. If you can access the "thing" in real life and interact with it from the sidewalk, them is not on private property. Sidewalks are public.

    But if can only interact with the game (40m radius) them it should be removed.

    There is also people who thinks that "if it's on the right street/block it's fine", as long as is possible to interact with the game and get mad if they got moved to rightfully place.

  • Svizac28-INGSvizac28-ING Posts: 88 ✭✭✭

    I see so many people ignore the 40-meter rule, both submiters and reviewers. It's just sad.

  • AnaKNOXdown-INGAnaKNOXdown-ING Posts: 117 ✭✭✭
    edited April 2020

    👆️ Says a person who submitted a portal to his home location (which was fake) so he can farm/lure from his couch. And the distance from the original location was approx 50 meters

  • Hydracyan-INGHydracyan-ING Posts: 130 ✭✭✭
  • Sugarstarzkill-PGOSugarstarzkill-PGO Posts: 437 ✭✭✭✭✭


    I think you are mistaken. Some of the most common examples in this category are Little Free Libraries and historical plaques that are located at single family residences.

    If it is a *single family home* even if the LFL/plaque/whatever is right next to the sidewalk- even if you can literally touch it while standing on the sidewalk- you are supposed to REJECT IT. This seems crazy since people expect the public to access LFL's but that is the guidance we have for these types of things.

    It is to protect Niantic from further lawsuits. The explanation I have seen is that pokemon will spawn 40m around the pokestop. Therefore, even if the POI is right at the sidewalk, there could be spawns in the backyard, for example, which may tempt players to trespass.

  • Hydracyan-INGHydracyan-ING Posts: 130 ✭✭✭

    The big problem is that's a point of view not shared by the whole world. Private Single Family property, with 80m wide in front, full opened with a big lawn and free access to the front door... that's a PRP standard that does not exist in the whole world. Where I live, if the 40m rule became blindely applied, all the POIs will be down. A church is located right next 2 PRP, each lot with less than 15m wide. A free open gymnastic equipment and playgrounds separated from PRP by a single lane street, thats also about 15m wide.

    That's why this is a confuse rule. If LFL the way you described appears here, it would probably be accepted and approved. Why? because the PRP will have a 2m tall wall preventing any access (all 4 to 8 prp in the 40m range).

    That's why I take it by the "judge carefully" part. This cannot be applied literally in every case.

  • Hydracyan-INGHydracyan-ING Posts: 130 ✭✭✭
    edited April 2020

    Take this as an example. It's a church that isn't a POI yet, because I didn't knew about it until yesterday.

    It has about 20m wide in the front, there is residencial property on both sides, plus probably 3 on the back, and over the street are just houses too.

    Should I submit it? Is literally impossible to to put the pin 40m away from a private property.

  • PoMaQue-PGOPoMaQue-PGO Posts: 252 ✭✭✭✭

    Casey clarified on this forum that even if it's attached on a PRP's fence, it's PRP:

    These things are deemed acceptable (not by me) because the in-game action radius allows them to play without trespassing.

    But the POI is still on PRP and encouraging people to gather in front of someone's house, risking noise complaints, littering, people constantly present at your front door, etc.

  • Sugarstarzkill-PGOSugarstarzkill-PGO Posts: 437 ✭✭✭✭✭

    And to further clarify- churches NEXT to PRP or parks or whatever- ARE still allowed. They say to review those carefully and consider if it would encourage trespassing. I've had many things here in the U.S. NEXT to PRP approved.

    The issue here is if the POI is actually a part of that private residence, like LFL's. It is reachable by sidewalk but is still on the homeowner's property. This is totally different to a playground/park/church with a single family residence nearby.

  • jontebula-INGjontebula-ING Posts: 96 ✭✭✭

    If wayspots are least 40m from preschool they follow criteria?

  • Sugarstarzkill-PGOSugarstarzkill-PGO Posts: 437 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @jontebula-ING I'm not sure what preschools have to do with private property? Or are you asking a separate question?

  • Sugarstarzkill-PGOSugarstarzkill-PGO Posts: 437 ✭✭✭✭✭

    PS: if I'm genuinely wrong about how I interpret the 40m ruling I would like to know that! I have some disagreements and if I'm truly wrong, I would like to see the clarification that I didn't see/misunderstood.

    I'm not trying to sound condescending in any way, I've tried to write that a few different ways. Text doesn't always convey things well, but I'm being genuine.

  • Jasonwhut-INGJasonwhut-ING Posts: 9 ✭✭

    There is no directive to reject everything within 40 meters of PRP. Please read the instructions carefully. We are to reject things ON PRP. Things that appear to be within 40 meters we are to closely examine to ensure that the Wayspot would not encourage trespassing on the nearby PRP. Your church example is fine because a Wayspot there would not be ON PRP and no trespassing on PRP would be needed to access the Wayspot.

  • Theisman-INGTheisman-ING Posts: 1,001 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Actually there is, but for some reason its an addition to the information on indoor nominations.

    It goes

    Indoor Wayspots

    • Acceptable: Mounted or free-standing murals, paintings, fountains, sculptures, etc. in a mall or the lobby of a business that also meet the criteria of being visually unique and locally significant.
    • Not acceptable: Mounted or free-standing murals, paintings, fountains, sculptures, etc. on or within 40 meters of private residences.

    Now this goes against all the other information which says to pay attention and closely examine POI's within 40m

    Currently there's conflicting information on the Wayfarer help site, and has been since January, which is where all this discussion of what is and isnt valid within 40m stems from

  • grsmhiker-INGgrsmhiker-ING Posts: 173 ✭✭✭✭

    I may be wrong in my interpretation, but here's what I've always read into that particular piece of guidance: because it's a subset of the "Indoor Wayspots" section and mentions objects that can be installed temporarily or easily moved around, I believe the intent is to prevent players from faking a wayspot in order to get a couch portal or stop. In theory, someone could nominate a POI centered on a public building next to their house either by using a fake photo of some indoor object, or by temporarily placing an object inside the building. If there's no photosphere or indoor street view, reviewers might be inclined to decide that the object is likely to exist and rate that particular section a 3.

  • Faversham71-INGFaversham71-ING Posts: 1,081 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I'd not considered it that way, but it's a certainly a reasonable interpretation.

  • Jasonwhut-INGJasonwhut-ING Posts: 9 ✭✭

    The indoor Wayspots clarification doesn't invalidate what I said.

    There is no directive to reject everything within 40 meters of PRP. 

    The Indoor Wayspots clarification from January is contradictory and nonsensical. A mural in a bar in a city would be invalid because there is a private residence nearby? 40 meters from a private residence covers most of the city Wayspots, do you think we should reject them all? The Wayfarer app doesn't give us a circle around the location to see if there are any occupied dwellings within 40 meters. Let's call it what it is, a poorly worded clarification by someone that doesn't understand terminology, the prp rules, or the lawsuit. Now it's misapplied and people reject many valid nominations or it's ignored because it makes no sense.

  • grsmhiker-INGgrsmhiker-ING Posts: 173 ✭✭✭✭

    I'm afraid you may be correct. TBH I've always suspected that there was much more behind the wording than we will ever know; it may very well be possible that the specific language used might even be intentional on the part of their legal team... and it very well may be that the language is purposefully vague and nonsensical in the way that layers tend to spin seemingly contradictory or ambiguous statements so as to give them more room for interpretation in a legal proceeding.

    I'll also speculate that this is why Niantic won't accept appeals for rejections and requires that users resubmit a nomination. Imagine, for example, that legal trouble arose from a player trespassing on an adjacent PRP to find that mural in your city bar. Niantic can argue, well, the database is 100% player contributed, so we aren't the ones who put that POI there, and we gave the community guidance that said it should have never approved that one in the first place, as you can see from this clearly worded document...

  • Diskrepansi-INGDiskrepansi-ING Posts: 99 ✭✭✭

    I don't have much to add to this that isn't already said, I'm just posting to show support to get this question answered. The criteria in general can often be rather grey, and I've had multiple nominations rejected for 'odd' reasons, and this distance issue appears to be one of them. That said, it can be hard to figure out why sometimes since the feedback is simply "does not meet criteria".

    I find it disconcerting that I have a 70% reviewer agreement rating, yet have only managed to get 30% of my own nominations approved (with 15% withdrawn of my own accord once I discovered updates/clarifications to criteria).

    Not being clear on this, I've also started passing on reviews where the PoI is close to, but not on, PRP.

  • AeriTheBOFH-PGOAeriTheBOFH-PGO Posts: 261 ✭✭✭

    How reviewers interpret the PRP rule is pretty subjective it seems. I have an example too.

    So I got a trail marker rejected for PRP, the government obviously doesn't place trail markers on PRP but you can see it's a few metres away from someone's back fence (cream-coloured colourbond fence). Therefore I wonder if people were applying the 40m rule when they rejected it.

    This an updated supporting photo that I'll use when trying again (the POI is the sign on the steel pole behind the right of the gate):

    And this is the Google Maps location:

    I reckon there's enough evidence to say it's a legit trail and I would like to think it's eligible. The trail was there before the houses, when people decided to live there, surely they'd be ok with people walking past their back fence.

    Mind you, the water tower you can see in the supporting photo is already a wayspot so it's obvious the trail itself is not on PRP.

    I also suspect that some reviewers don't bother switching to satellite view when reviewing either.

    Will try submitting again without an upgrade this time.

Sign In or Register to comment.