Appeal due to incorrect removal of pokestop / poi
Kaitleesi-PGO
Posts: 18 ✭✭
Title of the Wayspot: [The Little Free Library]
Location: [32.991926/-96.698938]
City: [Richardson]
Country: [USA]
Screenshot of the Rejection Email: [N/A - point of interest was removed in pokemon go]
Photos to support your claim: [
]
Additional information: This location is eligible as a publicly accessible little free library. In most cities here, the city owns the easement from the sidewalk to the street, and you can't simply build as you please within that space. The little free library is located as close to the public sidewalk easement as possible without posing as an accessibility concern. If it were any closer to the sidewalk, it would overhang and be considered a protruding object which is an issue for people with visual impairments. This little free library is actively maintained and filled for the public to use as they please. The distance from the library to the street is small enough that the in game point of interest is reachable from the entire street. Thank you for reconsidering this stop's eligibility. I look forward to seeing the response or discussing further as needed.
Comments
Duplicate post
You claim it is not on private residential property, but it looks very much like it is in private residential property and there is no way for the casual observer to know otherwise. That alone makes it invalid.
https://community.wayfarer.nianticlabs.com/discussion/comment/121121/#Comment_121121
If needed I can provide additional photos and measurements of distance. It is a few miles from my place of work and I am happy to provide what evidence is needed to get this resolved as a valid POI.
That statement is about objects near private residential property. If it is on private residential property or a casual observer cannot be determined that it is not on private residential property, it is still invalid.
I have an additional photo to share but I am not sure if it will let me upload. It shows it directly adjacent to the sidewalk and road and the context of the rest of the road. It seems like other LFL in the area were acceptable in the same situation but this one was removed. If that's actually considered ineligible, someone has a lot of local stop removing in our city to start on. Doesn't make a lot of sense to me given that LFL are for the public use and don't require stepping off of a public right of way to use. I would understand if someone lodged a LFL in their personal garden back against the house or even any further into the property.
Sorry about the duplicate post. Didn't realize how this worked.
This looks eligible to me. Especially considering that you cannot construct between the sidewalk and road due to it being city easement. While the home owners are required to maintain that **** of grass between sidewalk and street, it is not permissible to construct on it as it does technically belong to the city. In addition, the LFL is as close to the sidewalk as it can be , without causing an obstruction re: TAS protruding objects in paths of travel.
It literally says “that is not interfering with a SF residence”
It is not interfering though? What are they defining as interfering... that might be where I am not understanding how it is ineligible.
From the November 2020 AMA:
Nominations that appear to be within 40m of private, single-family residential property should be very closely reviewed to make sure they are not on private residential property, and that they are accessible from locations not on private residential property.
It fails the very first test for being on private residential property. The second test are for objects that aren't on PRP, but a player needs to go onto PRP to access it. There was an appeal for a mural posted on these forms that makes a good example of a Wayspot that fails the latter.
And from the Rejection Criteria under Section 2: "Ineligible location, place, or object":
Location is a private residential property (even if historical), farmland, a K12 and under school (preschool, primary/elementary, secondary/high school), child care/daycare center, rehabilitation center, safety shelter
And finally, the removal criteria—as outlined in the September 2020 AMA—has private residential property listed as a criterion. No where in @NianticGiffard's statement did he say that Wayspots on private residential property were allowed (whether it is accessible from a sidewalk or not). If you are reading that into his statement, then you are completely wrong.
Sidewalks are not private property though? That’s what I’m pointing out. Even though it has proximity to the private property, it’s still accessible by public right of way which is the second point on your first quote. Sidewalks are not private property and are maintained by the city.
The LFL is not on the sidewalk but is someone's yard. That means it is on private residential property and is therefore invalid. It does not matter if it is within reach of a public sidewalk, it is physically on private residential property.
So basically all the little free libraries in the metroplex I’m in need to be removed as it’s not permissible to construct them on city easements and they are all, by this definition, on private property.
Not all, the ones in public, or non single home residential can stay.
As I said in my previous response, all the little free libraries around here / in the local metroplex are located on privately owned property if the above definitions are correct- because legally we can’t build them anywhere else according to the laws here. So those all need to be reported and removed per what the above comments say.
Any and all "little free libraries" that are physically located on single-family private residential property should be reported for removal, yes.
Appeal Denied - Thanks for the appeal, Trainer. We have taken another look but stand by our decision to retire this Pokéstop/Gym.