Little Free Libraries by the sidewalk
PDSchroeder-PGO Posts: 38 ✭✭
I know that Little Free Libraries typically make good nominations. I am curious though about what to do in the case of the Little Free Library that is basically touching the sidewalk, but may technically fall on private property. Do we just reject these in this case, or do we give them a pass as they are accessible to the public? What takes precedence?
Rejection criteria always takes precedence over the acceptance and eligibility criteria. So if it is on private residential property (or you cannot determine that it is not on private residential property), then it is not acceptable.
Even if the concrete that serves as the base literally touches the sidewalk then?
It has to be entirely on the sidewalk. If the is on private residential property, then it is not acceptable.
That’s the traditional interpretation, yes. An LFL anywhere on private, single-family residential property, from the middle of the house to the outer fence - is rejectable as PRP.
However, Niantic recently stated that POIs that are “away from the house toward the sidewalk” can be eligible, so nobody 100% knows the answer to this. Use your best judgement.
Noted. Thank you for the clarification. I was curious as the very nature of the LFL invites public access, so it seemed plausible that it may follow a slightly different rule set than just any other decoration or object.
It has to be on the sidewalk or the easement between the sidewalk and the road, if it is on the prp side of the sidewalk, it should be rejected for prp.
Niantic recently stood by their decision to remove one of these LFL on the prp side even though it is reachable from the sidewalk.
Well now i'm just as confused as before
Welcome to Wayfarer, where Niantic periodically contradicts their own rules. Whether it’s dog waste stations or LFLs or pedestrian access in the middle of a roundabout, looking for hard and fast consistency is a fool’s errand. Wayfarer guidelines are intended to be subjective, which could allow for cultural variations, but more often creates this kind of confusion.
There is no written policy stating that “POIs at the sidewalk or on the easement are eligible, while pins on the house side of the property are ineligible.” That is not a rule. The closest guidance we have is that locations “away from the house and toward the sidewalk can be eligible.”
Niantic has said no such thing. People are misinterpreting a comment @NianticGiffard to claim that Wayspots on the private residential property are acceptable if they are "acceptable from the sidewalk". However Giffard's statements was about objects near private residential property, but not ON private residential property.
I did get the quote incorrect. It is: “If an eligible object is on the sidewalk or near a sidewalk that is not interfering with a single-family residence then it is acceptable.”
That is the full guideline and it has not been clarified any further. It does not say ‘the house side of the sidewalk is ineligible but the road side of the sidewalk is eligible.’ That’s not there.
I never stated that was in the statement from Niantic. I was explaining what should be considered prp in layman’s terms for the op since they were questioning it.
I think the only official guidance in the criteria is that prp is an ineligible location, the further Niantic clarification is just in a random forum thread.
The "full guideline" is at https://niantic.helpshift.com/a/wayfarer/?p=web&l=en&s=wayspot-eligibility and @NianticCasey-ING said is the "source of truth" when announcing it. And in that guideline under "Rejection Criteria" in Section 2: Ineligible location, place, or object", it clearly lists private residential property as a ineligible location with no exceptions. I know that many people are trying to use @NianticGiffard's statement to carve out an exception, but it doesn't exist nor should anyone try to promote it as if there is one.
Well, to only add to your confusion.
My locale is typical for North America. There is an easement in front of all houses, where utility poles, sidewalks, electrical boxes, fire hydrants, and so on are placed. As a homeowner, you're NOT allowed to grow anything of height (ie. hedges) or install any freestanding structures (ie. LFFs) on the easement without explicit permission from your local planning committee. You may even have to get your local Homeowner's Association involved.
Basically here, any LFL built on the road-side of the sidewalk is a "guerilla" installation, and the PRP owner in question can be fined by the municipality, ordered to immediately remove it, or both. Permission to erect the structure can be obtained, but it's not always easy, as one of their primary concerns is vehicular sightlines.
To me, the Niantic response indicates there's a level of judgment call involved. I know some people are stricter. Here is one I recently accepted (though I'm expecting a disagreement): it is outside the fence, and they put a bench there:
Here is one I recently rejected for PRP, as you would have to walk onto the lawn to get it:
The first one you should have also rejected, its attached to their fence.
In your post you seem to admit that you know you shouldn't be giving it a pass but did anyway.
There is NO judgement call, if it's on PRP then its a reject
I disagree. To me it passes muster for "If an eligible object is on the sidewalk or near a sidewalk that is not interfering with a single-family residence then it is acceptable." Expecting disagreement is based on the track record of similar ones, since more people seem to share your opinion.
That doesn't and never did override the rejection criteria of located on private residential property.
I think most towns/cities/ unincorporated towns PRP extends to the curb. So the sidewalk and the little grass median before the curb most houses have in front are still their PRP. The city or housing development may have laid down the sidewalk, but the owner of the home has to maintain it. Am I incorrect?
It absolutely does. Otherwise there would be no allowance for this kind of distinction.
I think you aught to reread what @NianticGiffard actually said. Giffard never said that Wayspots on private residential property were allowed under any circumstances.
Yes, you are incorrect. In Australia, the verge is explicitly public property, not private. The verge (also called nature s t r i p) is the area between where you can put your front fence and the footpath, the footpath, and the area between the footpath and the road. This area is owned by the Crown, and controlled by the council (local government). You are obliged to keep the weeds down (though I assume you can ask for exemptions if you're physically unable to) and maintain the driveway crossover (which must comply with a variety of rules), but not to maintain the footpath - that's the council's job. None of the verge area is considered privately owned, and in many councils you are forbidden from even parking on it. You can, however, get permission to erect a little free library on it, so long as it doesn't obstruct pedestrian access or line of sight for cars (eg around corners).
Well I'm in the US so that was what I was referring to. So I may not be incorrect, for the US.
Where I live, homeowners do not own the grassy medium or the sidewalk outside their house, nor are they required to maintain either (no laws stating they must). Different cultures have different understandings of what "private residential property" means. Niantic needs to understand that their little corner of the globe is not necessarily representative of everywhere and make that clear.
For example, I seem to remember in Iceland, everyone is so friendly to each other that you can pretty much ask anyone if you go in their house and prepare yourself a hot beverage. Some cultures are far more suspicious of strangers than others so where "PRP" ends, varies on a country by country and culture by culture basis. Where I live, most people don't seem to mind people standing outside their house because we are no paranoid and constantly on edge, like many parts of the USA, perhaps because in the UK there are far fewer guns than people.
Had this library rejected as being on private property despite it being obvious from the map that it's on a public road with many houses. It's not even attached to the fence which is the property boundary.
Voting always seems totally random to me with 80% rejected for no reason, so the conversations about what exactly is private property etc seems wasted breath. I even have a submission that double submitted for some reason, so the exact same picture/description where the first one got rejected but the second one accepted...
Just a roll of the dice with each submission rather than any merit of the content causing rejection or acceptance
I reviewed this. I didn't reject it, but I do remember thinking that where the road transitions to gravel, it does look like the entrance to a private driveway (although I did note it eventually goes to a graveyard). I suspect the Google car driver thought that it looked private as well, as they didn't go onto the gravel section to get any street view images. That may be why others rejected it for the PRP reason.
So you are saying that it is black and white, there should never be a reason to give a submission like that an approval?
So should we also go out, report and remove 99% of these portals that are in game? I travel a lot across the country, and can think of maybe 3 out of hundreds of LFL that are not touching PRP in some way.
Funny, I get at least a couple per day to review that are not. They are located in parks, by businesses, or on the grounds of multi-family housing complexes such as apartment buildings.
But yeah, if you want to take the time to report ones you come across that are on PRP, go for it. They most likely would be removed with proof of their location on PRP.
Im saying that if a submission is on PRP, be it the garden, their boundary wall / fence, the side of the house, then it is 100% an instant no
When it comes to PRP, it really is a simple yes and no choice.
Ifa POI is on PRP, then it must be rejected. It doesn't matter if you can reach it / interact with it from a public space, it must be rejected.
If it is not on PRP then it may be accepted (provided meeting criteria etc etc etc).
Anything that is on PRP should be reported as invalid and removed
Objects on private residential property are one of the areas that are a clear "yes" or "no". You won't find a "accessible from a public street/sidewalk" exception anywhere in the criteria and even @NianticGiffard's comment about objects near private residential property didn't created such an exception. In fact, the question Giffard was directly answering was about a LFL that was in the grassy area between a public sidewalk and street. It did not involve any objects that were on the PRP side of the sidewalk. In essence, the question was about whether to treat that str!p as an extension of the private residential property or not since laws in different areas vary about the ownership of the str!p and reviewers are not going to know the details of such laws or where the property line is.
I have seen a lot of supportings like this lately