Are apartment complexes now prp?

I have noticed an increased trend in my area of “notification boards” and “clubhouses” in apartment complexes becoming points of interest. The discussion with other players near me is that these should not be eligible because they are prp. I’m on the fence about them but I am leaning towards them being eligible. I am having trouble finding anything that says multi family units like apartment complexes and townhome communities; don’t fall under the prp umbrella. Can anyone help me with this? Thanks!

Tagged:

Comments

  • VladDraco-PGOVladDraco-PGO Posts: 560 ✭✭✭✭

    That means they are not ineligible because of PRP, but they need to be eligible, and after to be approved.

  • X0bai-PGOX0bai-PGO Posts: 1,667 ✭✭✭✭✭

    The common areas of multifamily residential buildings (apartments, townhomes, etc) are eligible as long as they meet the other criteria.

    That said, I usually won’t vote to approve a clubhouse unless there’s a sign; without a sign I usually can’t distinguish them from another apartment.

  • I've noticed this as well. We have a park in our area belonging to an apartment building and there's a large "No Trespassing" sign on the front. It's concerning because it's gated and beside a kiddie pool yet it somehow got approved. It's been really concerning and I've tried to get it removed (it was removed before then somehow it was placed on top the park). There really needs to be some nuances in these new guidelines(?), especially with sensitive places where children are sent to play unattended.

    They want me to get the management company involved but it's kind of hard to if they're not players. This just seems like an unnecessary barrier in an area that isn't all that safe.



  • Cowyn2016-PGOCowyn2016-PGO Posts: 510 ✭✭✭✭

    Bad form man... posting your views here, then 3 minutes later making your own thread with your same picture.

    You're bordering on being a spammer.

    Youre also completely wrong in both. Restricted access doesnt make things ineligible. It's open to anyone living in that complex = publically accessible. The people that live there are part of the public. Someone living there, might well have been the original submitter.

    Tons of things are only open certain hours (say a piece of art in an office) or paid entry (spots stadiums, amusement parks) etc

  • MthrOfFireChkns-PGOMthrOfFireChkns-PGO Posts: 5 ✭✭
    edited December 2021

    Actually, my posts were in queue for almost a day because they included photos. They weren't posted 3 minutes apart from each other. Also, how does it make me a spammer for sharing my concerns in 2 separate areas? This topic is relevant to what the OP is discussing.

    You're also telling me that a gated, private park with a kiddie pool beside it should have attention drawn to it? Do you realize how many families in the apartment buildings might not even know what's happening and that a formally safe area could now be potentially more dangerous because of a game they don't even know anything about? This is far more complicated, and should be considered with more nuanced than you're letting onto. We've decided in the past against preschool parks and the likes; I have no idea why this Pokegym was eligible to begin with other than the fact that the player who submitted it for consideration didn't show the gate around the park itself.



  • WheelTrekker-INGWheelTrekker-ING Posts: 3,006 ✭✭✭✭✭

    We've decided in the past against preschool parks and the likes

    We didn't decide anything at all. It's a ruling from Niantic.

    the player who submitted it for consideration didn't show the gate around the park itself

    Even showing the gates surrounding the park, this is a valid wayspot according to Niantic's rules. If the owners of that space want it removed they can request so to Niantic, but external people can't do that.

  • MthrOfFireChkns-PGOMthrOfFireChkns-PGO Posts: 5 ✭✭
    edited December 2021

    Thanks WheelTrekker-ING for your response. Yes, that's who I meant moreso (Niantic), though I do say "we" only because I noticed they have been known to consider Wayfarer's input at times as they adjust their guidelines.

  • Cowyn2016-PGOCowyn2016-PGO Posts: 510 ✭✭✭✭

    Because you shared your identical concern in 2 areas that is spamming. You've made it where people have to answer you 2* as much as well. Doubling the responses

    You're whole post is "This is ineligible and needs removal"... that's wrong... Now if you had taken the response in 1 place, that Niantic should readjust their rules to make stuff like this ineligible, that's different. But that's not what you did. I'd still disagree.

Sign In or Register to comment.