"Playgrounds" in private residences
fnordius-ING
Posts: 6 ✭✭
I have noticed some wayspots located in the private gardens of apartment buildings. These are not publicly accessible playgrounds, often little more than a slide and a climbing tower in a sandbox. Technically, these are invalid portals due to being private residences, yet the apartment building makes it seem like a normal playground.
In the interest of the safety of all Ingress/Pokémon Go/Harry Potter Wizards Unite players and in preserving the privacy of the residents, I ask that Niantic declare that even apartment buildings are private residences and not encourage trespassing.
Tagged:
Comments
The key term for rejecting for PRP is “single family”. Nominations in common/shared spaces in multi-family locations is just fine as per Niantic.
Note of course that anything in a space for any single unit (apartment, yard, balcony, etc) would still be invalid.
If they are accessible to those living in the apartment complex, then they are publicly accessible. Ninatic classify those living in the apartment complex as part of the public.
How does “publicly accessible” apply to locations that have limited access, like members-only clubs, gated communities, time-restricted areas?
Just like with the definition of private residential property, this guideline hasn’t changed. These locations would still be eligible, including restricted areas on the grounds of a company’s headquarters or behind locked gates so long as there wouldn’t be objections to you entering the area and the location is accessible to some folks. We do not expect all players to have access to all locations but we strongly recommend following real-world rules while attempting to access locations.
Shared/common areas at apartment blocks have always been areas that can have eligible waypoints accepted. These play areas are important for the community that live in the block.
Not everyone has to be able to access every waypoint and no one should trespass to get access to a waypoint that isn't available to them. However it's quite OK for them to exist for the benefit of those who do have access.
Here a specific example of a technically correct location, yet the supposed playground is inaccessible (located in Munich, Germany):
The only way to access this particular location is either to scale a fence or to go through the building. The only gate is locked. The other issue is that the road on the map may appear to be a normal road, there is no pedestrian walkway. It is an autobahn exit.
The only way to access this particular location is either to scale a fence or to go through the building.
So anybody who can go through the building can get to it? No problem then. It is accessible as you admit.
YOU can't get to it? Doesn't matter. Not everybody has to be able to get to it.
"So anybody who can go through the building can get to it?"
No, only residents with a key.
So it's a POI with restricted acces. It still apply to definition posted here by TheFarix-PGO - in short, POIs with restricted acces only to some people are ok in game, it's not reason for removal. If only even one person can acces them safetly, then it's eligible POI and shouldn't be removed. If you can't acces it, then there isn't anything you can do about it, just forget about this POI and focus on other POIs in this location.
I also know about some unavailable POIs in town close to my village, we just forget about them and focus on other POIs, it's just how it must be ;)
Residents of the block can access it, therefore it's fine. Let them enjoy it, it's perfectly eligible.
You as a reviewer have the "safe access" category. If only residents with a key have access, you might give 2 * for "safe access".
If people can safely access it then it is 5* for safe access even if you personally can't just walk up to it.
That's incorrect according to the guidelines. Safe access doesn't mean public access.
wrong. please correct your way of reviewing. it is safe acess, so 5*.
if the question was "acess availability" ..sure 2*.. but that is not to be evaluated.
Being accessible to a limited group is not the same as not having safe access. These are two very different conditions and should ever be conflated with one another.
I have revisited the location, and can confirm that the "playground" in question is only available to two families and explicitly private. The original submitter had committed trespass to take the photo that they did. The people living there are annoyed by the current influx of trespassers.
Now, if an area is only accessible by crossing private residential property (individual gardens), in the interest of the residents and players alike it should not be a waypoint. That is what I feel, and I stand by this.
My thanks to the neighbours for putting up with my ringing their doorbell and explaining the situation to me.
If the legitimate owners of the building (not just tenants living there) are annoyed, they can contact Niantic directly, with proof of property ownership, and request that it be removed from their property.
As you've said that two families have access to the location, it means this building is not PRP, and the person who originally submitted the location might have lived in that building at the time for all you know.
As you are not the owner of this building, the matter should not really concern you any further though, and there's nothing you can personally do to get the location removed.
oh wow bothering other people to confirm such things...
well, if you there are trespassers that's due to ingress.
Irrelevant to the discussion; criteria guidelines are meant to cover a broad range of potential POI. They will not work 100% for every situation. As many folks in this thread have indicated, while Single Family Residences are strictly prohibited, potential POI's on multifamily ( 2 families is multifamily) are expressly allowed. If the families want it removed, as its creating a nuisance they have the ability to do so by contacting Niantic.
Also, Niantic warns players not to cross into private property while playing any of their games. Your outrage is misplaced. It should not be with the wayfarer community or the guidelines, it should be with the players that, as you say, "current influx of trespassers."
Unless the people with a key are put into danger to access the Wayspot, you give 5* to safe access.
Its fairly evident by the OP and subsequent follow-up that this isn't about the stop itself. The more I read this the more it sounds like someone whom is ....hurt that their stop was rejected and is now upset that this apartment complex has a similar type of stop. Unless they knew these people before starting this thread and wanted to help them find out how to get it removed there is quite literally no reason for this other then a stop got rejected and so everyone else shouldn't have stops close to where they live either.
"If I cant play with the ball no one should get too."