Wayspots on private properties

rekire-PGOrekire-PGO Posts: 31 ✭✭
edited May 2021 in Criteria Clarifications

I know it that those are not allowed, but why if you do not need to enter the property? If you can see it from the public street with sidewalks, I see there absolutely no problem with it. If you don't want to anyone looks at it do not make it visible. So this rule should not be applied.

If you need to walk onto the property to see it I absolutely agree that this should be rejected. It should not matter if that is a house of a single or multiple families, I see there absolutely no difference.

Wayspots should be out of my view something special out of art, historical or noticeable places.

I guess about 100 of my suggestion were rejected about this thoughtless rule.

Post edited by rekire-PGO on

Comments

  • sogNinjaman-INGsogNinjaman-ING Posts: 3,313 ✭✭✭✭✭

    They are not allowed because the Niantic guidelines say they are not. That's the way it works for Wayfarer and Niantic games. Same as the K-12 rule, Under-18 schools are not allowed. If you want to play the game, you have to follow the rules of the game. Makes no difference if you thing the rule is wrong or the Criteria should not be in the game. Simples.

  • rekire-PGOrekire-PGO Posts: 31 ✭✭

    I just want to discuss this, since I think the rule has serious unintended downsides. As said: I respect foreign property, but I think it doesn't make sense how it is defined, even that 40m radius around private property does not make sense out of the US.

    That K-12 rule is most confusing to be honest: Why are then playgrounds fine? If you just focus on children protection that does not make sense at all.

  • WheelTrekker-INGWheelTrekker-ING Posts: 3,388 ✭✭✭✭✭

    We can discuss it all the time that you want, but that won't change Niantic's attitude at all. When lawyers are involved, logic is missing.

    Most of the users would agree that outside of the USA that rule doesn't make any sense at all, and even in the USA, it should be possible to tell that a feature on the outside fence of a building has been placed there so other people can enjoy it.

    But that's all, even if we agree that the rule is wrong, Niantic is not gonna change it.

  • iSd3d-PGOiSd3d-PGO Posts: 17 ✭✭

    In capital cities like 90% of wayspots are on private properties, especially murals or sculptures....

  • rekire-PGOrekire-PGO Posts: 31 ✭✭

    Might be if enough people talk about this issue Niantic will see this and might start to think about it. I'm optimistic.

  • WheelTrekker-INGWheelTrekker-ING Posts: 3,388 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Ok, good luck.

    People have been talking for years about the many issues in Wayfarer and the fact is that they still remain and some issues grow bigger and bigger with no visible action to really fix the problems. And in some aspects like this, there's a sentence or some kind of legal agreement in a court (you can find it if you want), so the chances that they change it due to some people talking about it is close to 0.

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

    Niantic's rule of no Wayspots on private residential property has existed long before the lawsuit which they were able to settle out of court (because of said rule). Niantic also does not want to create separate set of criteria for different country and doesn't want reviewers to worry about the intricacies of local laws. Instead, the rule is kept simple for a purpose. No Wayspots on private residential property or what may appear to be private residential property. And if it cannot be determined that the Wayspot is not on private residential property, remove/reject it as a precaution.

  • Jtronmoore-PGOJtronmoore-PGO Posts: 1,581 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Highly doubt talking about this very solid rule will make any change to it. And it shouldnt anyways. Will just open a door to people trying to get home stops

  • 0X00FF00-ING0X00FF00-ING Posts: 769 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Minor reminder that hasn’t been reclarified in this thread yet.

    The prohibition is against SINGLE-family residential property. Something (like a gazebo/pergola/pavilion, playground, etc) on the grounds of a multi-family complex (apartment building, townhouses, etc) IS allowed and is even encouraged by Niantic. The only caveat is that the location must be in a “common area”.

    Also (and this is related to something I’ve resubmitted multiple times, due to reviewers’ misunderstanding of these rules): the “accessibility” of the location needs only be from within those grounds itself.

  • itamernz-INGitamernz-ING Posts: 51 ✭✭✭
    edited May 2021

    Does everyone in your neighbourhood have 6ft high fences? Mine don't but that doesn't mean I have the right to make their garden gnome into a POI.

    We have properties with items on their boundary that are obviously meant to be publicly appreciated, even plaques given by Council, that get rejected when I would like to see them approved - but my point of view is firmly based on what is normal in my city and Wayfarer has to find the answer that works across all cities, all provinces, all countries.

    I guess we should be thanking you for giving your local reviewers some easy "agreements" when they 1* your submissions.

    Post edited by NianticGiffard on
  • rekire-PGOrekire-PGO Posts: 31 ✭✭

    I just want to make clear that I don't want to have waypoits on huge private residents or in backyards. I'm talking about e.g. painted art (not simple tags) on house walls or selfmade unique statures (no mass products like garden gnomes).

    I life in a region where a lot of builds are in a row, some have front yards some have high fances (not sure what 6ft are without to google it). If there is a front door fancy cavings on a real masterpeace directly at the public(!) sidewalk that should be valid to become a Wayspot no matter how many families life there.

    If I put something in my front yard (I'm talking about at maximum 2-4m) then I intend that people look at it, if I prefer privacy I build a high fence and that is fine too.

  • Shilfiell-INGShilfiell-ING Posts: 1,560 Ambassador

    Being able to VIEW an object from outside the property boundary isn't enough - you need to be able to safely reach an object or its foundation (like in bell towers and church crosses, no one expects you to climb to the top of a building) without trespass to have the object be eligible. That's why things in roundabouts without crosswalks are ineligible, too: even though you can see if from a sidewalk, if you can't reach it safely, it's out.

  • rekire-PGOrekire-PGO Posts: 31 ✭✭
    edited May 2021

    This is actually an interesting point. So a valid Waystop must be accessible for blind people? I do not really understand this, since out of my knowlage the game is not accessible for people with disabilities.

    If I think longer about it: You should not touch art in general. So this rule seems to be strange too.

  • bilde2910bilde2910 Posts: 79 ✭✭✭

    Pokémon Go requires you to be within 80 meters of a wayspot in order to interact with it. That circle is a binary yes/no on whether you can do things to said wayspot, be it battle in gyms, spin the stop, etc. IIRC, lures require that you are closer, but I don't know the exact range for those.

    Ingress, however, has mechanics that scale with distance to the portal. The 40 meter circle is a flat yes/no to whether you can deploy resonators or mods on it, but attacks do not follow that rule. The power of an attack scales with the distance to the resonators deployed on the portal. Ultra Strikes in particular have a very short range overall, so the closer you are to the exact location of the portal, the more effective the attack is. Which means Ingress actively encourages players to go as close to the portal as physically possible.

    This is a reason why Niantic states that you have to be able to walk all the way to the wayspot, and why placing a portal anywhere on private property will encourage trespassing, and why portals on roundabouts are dangerous, because you'd be encouraged by game mechanics to stand right in the middle of the traffic circle.

    Note that by private property, only single family residential property and farmlands are covered by that ruling. Apartment complexes are not by themselves ineligible per that criteria.

  • rekire-PGOrekire-PGO Posts: 31 ✭✭

    That is interesting I was aware about the resonators. I never used the Ultra Strikes correctly so this makes now more sense for me how they work.

  • KetaSkooter-INGKetaSkooter-ING Posts: 177 ✭✭✭

    Being able to stand at the waypoint center is relevant to pogo too. Pogo has the nearby pokemon at stops list which to my understanding if you're standing at the center of the stop any pokemon shown on that list will pop up for you where if you're off to one side or the other it may not appear.

  • Babarushki-PGOBabarushki-PGO Posts: 195 ✭✭✭

    @rekire-PGO You posted the same complaint in the “General Discussion” forum about not being able to establish waystops on PRP. The same folks review this forum as well.

    I do understand your argument, and think we all do. When there is a reason/rule fraught with legalese, debating it here is sort of fruitless. It’s lots easier understanding the role and reviewing nominations for their adherence to the rules, and their goodness/greatness after that.

    Best to you! 😀

  • rekire-PGOrekire-PGO Posts: 31 ✭✭

    The other thread was just about my frustration not really focusing on PRP, but it seems that the reviewers can be easily triggered by that topic.

    Here I tried to focus on this topic trying to check if I'm the only person who think that the rule is a killer argument against most wayspots.

  • sogNinjaman-INGsogNinjaman-ING Posts: 3,313 ✭✭✭✭✭

    It isn't. You just have to be more selective over the waypoints you submit, and understand that the game is not there to provide everybody with a Waypoint in every S17 cell, You may have to "explore" a bit to find a stop.

  • 0X00FF00-ING0X00FF00-ING Posts: 769 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Argh. I've just been had a nomination rejected again, with all the spurious reasons that are easily* refuted:

    1. "... appears to be on private residential property ..." It’s on multi-family property (for an apartment building) not single-family PRP. Rejection reason is nonsense. EASILY verifiable on the satellite view of the location
    2. "Nomination does not meet acceptance criteria" Pergolas and gazebos and pavilions (oh my!) are literally “social gathering places” and ANY reviewer who flags them as otherwise is NOT doing their job correctly, and is doing Wayfarer a disservice
    3. "The real-world location of the nomination appears to have explicit or inappropriate activity” is the new “generic business” rejection reason, being used by reviewers who cannot otherwise come up with valid rejection reasons

    *"easily" only to those reviewers who are already fully aware of the PRP rules, of course

  • TyBearius88-PGOTyBearius88-PGO Posts: 41 ✭✭

    The criteria are clear: if it's accesible from public and not ON the prp it's fine. Read the november AMA as source. Multi-family residential grounds and at the edge of prp are legit ("should be reviewed very closely"), also public acessible private property (e.g. campus, open-air museum, etc).

    NOT okay are POI on prp like sculptures in backyards.

  • Ark4242-PGOArk4242-PGO Posts: 154 ✭✭✭
    edited May 2021

    "The real-world location of the nomination appears to have explicit or inappropriate activity” is the new “generic business” rejection reason, being used by reviewers who cannot otherwise come up with valid rejection reasons



    Yeah, because the only thing reviewers see is "location inappropriate" and take that to mean "I don't like this location".

    If Niantic would make the rejection-tree 3 or 4 levels deep, instead of just 2, they could use it as a simple way to teach reviewers: Just make the 3rd level have options like "Adult Store", "Gun Range", "Apartment Building" etc.... But reject the ability to reject the nomination if you pick something like "Apartment Building" and just have a message saying it's not a rejection reason. Force the user to check a box acknowledging their mistake and then it closes. Now they have to pick the star rating again and continue from the start.

    Post edited by Ark4242-PGO on
Sign In or Register to comment.