When is a nomination on private property okay?
Frewfrux-PGO
Posts: 26 ✭✭
My question is basically "when is a nomination on private property okay?"
By "private property" I'm thinking more along the lines of strata property (townhomes and condos) rather than a detached home's property. Here's what I've figured out from reading through these forums:
- playgrounds on strata property are valid submissions
- playgrounds in a detached home's backyard are NOT valid
- swimming pools of any type in either a backyard or on a strata property are NOT valid
So, that's what I've come to understand based on posts here. I do still have questions, however:
1) is art on private property valid, and does it matter if it's a private yard verses a strata lot?
Eg. One nomination I skipped because I didn't know was a statue that seemed pretty permanent, but was beside someone's private driveway. If that's invalid, would it also be invalid if it was on strata property?
2) Does the rule about pools apply to all types, indoor and outdoor?
3) Free Libraries: these tend to be on private property, but they are very unique, and people often like to walk to them. Are they valid, or not?
4) Signs showing the name of a condo building...these sign are typically unique, but on private (strata) property...except that they are there for people not on the property. Are they valid?
Thanks in advance for the clarifications!
Comments
Free libraries are probably the easiest exception you listed when it comes to private property because who are they for if not the general public to enjoy?
Art is a little more of a gray area for me but I generally air on the side of “not ok”.
Pools and signs are a pretty easy no for me.
Anything on a detached single family home's property is ineligible, even if it's art or a Little Free Library. There's a LFL on my block, but I won't waste an upgrade nominating it because it's in the yard of a PRP.
If it's in the common area of an apartment/condo complex, it doesn't count as PRP, so generally common playground areas are eligible. If it's inside the apartment or condo itself, it's PRP. (I haven't been reviewing long, but I've seen people nominate items inside their homes.)
From what I gather, the concern about pools is over safety. Apartment/condo and private pools are out because they don't usually have lifeguards. A public pool run by the city or by a water park with lifeguards would be eligible.
Signs for condo/apartment buildings or for subdivisions don't usually meet the basic requirements.
Whether or not a nomination is on "private property" or not is not an issue, as most property belongs to someone. All that Niantic ask to be considered is "Is the submission on Private Residential Property" - i.e. is the property in question only used as the residence by a single family. If it is, then it is invalid under the PRP criteria. If the property holds multiple family residences - e.g. an apartment block / block of flats / strata properties (assuming I understand "strata" properties correctly) then a Waypoint on the property will not be considered invalid under PRP rules, but may be invalid due to other criteria. I'd consider your various examples as follows:
playgrounds on strata property are valid submissions - Correct
playgrounds in a detached home's backyard are NOT valid - Correct, something in a single family private residence garden is invalid under PRP
swimming pools of any type in either a backyard or on a strata property are NOT valid: Two different Niantic criteria here. Swimming pools of any type in either a backyard - Invalid under PRP. Swimming pools of any type on a strata property - Invalid under Niantic criteria for pools in the grounds of Condos.
Art on private property. If it is in the grounds or on the walls or boundary fence of a single family residential property - Invalid under PRP rules. In the grounds or on the walls of a Strata property - PRP does not apply, check the other criteria.
A Statue on someones private driveway - Invalid PRP. A Statue on Strata property - PRP does not apply.
The confusing pool rules apply to both indoor and outdoor pools.
Little Free Libraries. If they are sited on private residential property, either in the garden or on the fence, or anywhere within the property line, then they are invalid under PRP rules. It does not matter if they can be accessed / hacked / spun from the sidewalk - PRP rules apply.
Condo signs - not valid, similar to sub-division signs.
Thats my take on how the criteria should be applied.
Interesting. In the Strata Act (at least for BC Canada) strata property ("common" areas that are a part of the condo or townhouse complex) are all private property. The "common" aspect of them is in reference to them being for common use of the owners, and not the public. This applies to playgrounds as well.
I think that is the main source of much of my confusion here. For someone off the street to enter a strata-owned playground is the same as someone off the street entering a playground in someone's back yard. Yet playgrounds are allowed. My assumption has been that this is because of the number of people they serve. After all, most (all?) strata's have "no trespassing" signs up.
However, people seem divided as to whether public-facing art that is on strata-owned land (private residential property) should be allowed. Why would PRP not apply to art on strata property? Is it because of the number of people it "serves" (as opposed to the land type which is still private property)?
First of all, I'm relatively new here as well, so I'm not sure how qualified I am to definitively answer your questions. Here's my personal take on your questions, but if someone more experienced than I comes along and disagrees, I'll defer to their answer.
1) is art on private property valid, and does it matter if it's a private yard verses a strata lot?
Eg. One nomination I skipped because I didn't know was a statue that seemed pretty permanent, but was beside someone's private driveway. If that's invalid, would it also be invalid if it was on strata property?
Sometimes, prominent art on someone's private property can be OK, but it must fit one of these two criteria in my book:
As for the strata property question, some things on strata property are OK when they wouldn't be on a private home lot. I don't think there's a unilateral yes/no rule there - it's a judgement call. Here's a pretty good rule of thumb: there should be **absolutely no question** that anyone just walking by would get that close without feeling like someone might not want them there. Basically, if you saw the object and wanted to get a closer look - i.e. you had no reason to move closer other than wanting to look at it - could you walk up to it without worrying someone who lived there might not like it if they were watching? If your judgement tells you that they might even give you a sideways look, then that's a disqualifier. On that note, locations inside walled/fenced communities are instantly disqualified since you need to be a tenant to get inside the gate - that definitely doesn't count as publicly accessible.
2) Does the rule about pools apply to all types, indoor and outdoor?
I'm going to let someone else answer this one since I don't feel like I have a definitive answer.
3) Free Libraries: these tend to be on private property, but they are very unique, and people often like to walk to them. Are they valid, or not?
100% valid in every case I can think of. If a homeowner has placed a little free library in their front yard then they expect strangers to walk up to it to take or leave a book. They've made the library available to the public even though it is located on their privately owned land. This is one of the few cases where I think the answer is a clear yes or no. However, always use your judgment if something feels different about a particular submission.
4) Signs showing the name of a condo building...these sign are typically unique, but on private (strata) property...except that they are there for people not on the property. Are they valid?
This is a rather fuzzy area in my opinion. I'd say they aren't 1-star disqualified because of the private property rule since they are generally outside at the entrance of the community, as well as being intended to be seen by the public as you mentioned. However, for the most part I wouldn't say signs like that are ultra unique either. Yes, each community has a different name, but housing community signs like that are all designed along the same lines for the most part, and the names are very generic and predictable as well. So in short, yes they are valid, but generally these get 2 or 3 stars overall from me.
@Cancun101-PGO but LFL on private property are, as you said, clear yes or no, and it's NO
NianticGiffardDec 10, 2021
Let's make it clear for everybody so my comment does not get misinterpreted in any way.
Please don't confuse yourselves with my previous statement i.e. "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."
This is straight and clear and I haven't mentioned anywhere that the eligible object can be on private property. It is only acceptable if the object is not interfering with a single-family residence and should be away from it and not even on the edge.
This clarification should be kept in mind - Any object on the property of private residential property is ineligible. As long as it is on the property of private residential property even if accessible from a sidewalk nearby, it should be rejected.
I hope this clarifies.
LFLs on PRP (single family house lots) are not valid. It doesn't matter if they are intended for the general public to enjoy or not.
What about an LFL on private residential property where the private property was a multi-family unit or complex?
Because, despite Niantic's continued insistence on using the phrase "private residential property," when asked, they always insist that what they mean is "private single-family residential property." (Yes, it is ridiculous that they still hide this information about the basic criteria in clarifications.)
So then art, and spaces designed to be used by the public, are valid submissions even if they are on strata (multi-family) property, right?
Correct. As long as they are in a shared area of the property (rather than being in the private space of a single unit), then they would not need to be rejected under the PRP criteria.
If anyone is skimming, I just want to draw attention to @flatmatt-PGO 's response.
Ignore what Niantic wrote in the criteria. They have clarified they mean single family residential property, but refuse to update the criteria wording to reflect this. Because... Niantic? (Actually likely so they have wiggle room if there's ever another court case, although I'm pretty sure that wouldn't help them since their representatives have given the "real" meaning many times.)
First off, forget what particular legal definition of "private property" applies in your locality. For the purpose of Waypoinints and reviews, the only thing we are meant to use are the Niantic criteria.
Your comments / confusion about "Strata Properties" being "private" property are essentially covered by Niantic criteria on acessibility.
Niantic have defined "Private Residential Property" as a dwelling belonging to a single family residence. For condos / blocks of flats / Strata properties, the "common areas" my well be restricted access "private property", but Niantic have said repeatedly that limited access is no bar to having a Waypoint on site. Each building consists of multiple individual residences, so the buuilding as a whole does not fall under PRP rules. Provided authorised users / residents and / or approved guests and visitors are able to access a Waypoint, then the Waypoint or nomination are eligible. This is how all those POI on restricted access sites like military bases / factories / amusment parks / historic houses / condos / country clubs etc etc are allowed.
The "PRP rejection" cannot be applied to Strata properties, which is how art on the public facing walls of the building is allowed.
Here are common codes in America, for property zoned as private single-family residential property: https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Gardena/html/Gardena18/Gardena1812.html
Here's the pertinent part of the U.S. lawsuit that Niantic settled in September 2019. Niantic is ignoring the 40-meter part - maybe they appealed it; I don't know.
(f) Niantic will add specific instructions to the current review form that Niantic’s user-reviewers use to evaluate new POI submissions that direct user-reviewers to increase scrutiny regarding any proposed POI that may be located on or within 40 meters of a private single-family residential property, and POI that appear to be located in neighborhood parks. At a minimum, such instructions will include directions for the user-reviewer to examine the proposed POI using a variety of sources, including but not limited to mapping services maintained by private companies such as Google Maps. After such review, Niantic will use CRE to avoid placing the POI on any property that appears to the reviewer to be a single-family residential property.
(g) Niantic agrees that it shall manually review a statistically significant percentage of new POI submissions via a Niantic employee or contractor for the principal purpose of trying to avoid POI that are more likely to lead to issues with nuisance or trespass.
CRE means common practices. Not something costing their whole net worth, but also not just one old guy in a visor thumbing thru papers. Something in-between, that's commonly done/expected for a given process. (In other words, machine learning / AI was too expensive and rare in 2019, but now is becoming CRE.)
That is interesting that they never updated their criteria with the 40 meter wording even though they agreed to do it as part of the settlement. So seems like there's zero hope of them ever updating the criteria with something as non-binding as forum clarifications.
Niantic settled a lawsuit in September 2019. Here's part of the settlement. (Niantic has dropped the 40 meter part.)
CRE means Common... processes. I can't remember the R and E exactly. But it means the common way a process would be expected to be done - not something they'd have to pay their entire net worth to buy. But also not one old guy in a visor thumbing through papers.
It was in the criteria before the October/November 2020 update. I would presume it was removed because people were treating the 40m language as a total exclusion instead of "reviewing with increased scrutiny". One of the things you should note is that the community does an extremely poor job of handling nuances like that.
Ah, I see. That was right around the time I started reviewing, so I only saw the updated version.
"Niantic have said repeatedly that limited access is no bar to having a waypoint on site".
Am I the only one to find Niantic's position on this utterly unfair? This means they agree that only SOME players can access certain wayspots, here the happy few who have authorized access to a multiple-dwelling property through a badge, a pass, a key, etc. for example. Where is the equity in that? So basically, anyone can play this game with the same condiitons but hey! Some of you might be lucky and have a clear advantage on others. Just for reminder :
"We are committed to providing a fun and fair gaming experience for all players" ( https://niantic.helpshift.com/hc/en/3-ingress/faq/1043-report-inappropriate-gameplay/?s=agent-protocol&f=report-inappropriate-gameplay&p=web)
I find Niantic's stand here quite hypocritical. Might as well allow PRP wayspots because it boils down to more or less the same since the access is private. The grounds belong to a group of families instead of one single family but they are still private. I could even argue that Niantic is somehow encouraging us to break the law by turning a blind eye on the act of trespassing since that would be the only way for us to fulfill their "desire to provide a fair gaming experience to all players". Oh, by the way, isn't trespassing a reason for reporting a player? Again :
Where is the logic there??
Allowing POIs in restricted areas does NOT encourage you to trespass by any stretch of the imagination, and they flat out tell you not to trespass. If the POI wasn't there, it would make the same difference to you. So it doesn't matter if it IS there. Someone else's ability to reach a POI that you can't does not in any way negatively affect your gameplay; however, it DOES improve the gameplay of a community of people, which is the point.
Plus, the reasoning to allow limited access POIs is completely different from not allowing PRP POIs. PRP POIs facilitate creepy, intrusive, and disruptive behavior at peoples' actual homes because access is not actually private. Limited access POIs are just more community POIs, so they don't have near the same level of disruptiveness. If you could reach a limited access POI from outside the fence, that's perfectly fine for you to do so and be there. It's not perfectly fine for you to bring a raiding group to someone's driveway.
If you can't reach a POI inside a fence, and you really just gotta, then ... go walk yourself to an equal and identical POI elsewhere that you CAN reach. Pretend the restricted POI is located in another country, and then it will matter to you exactly the same, which is: not at all.
I agree with you that restricted POIs improve the gameplay of a community but at the cost of a whole other community : those who can't access. And let's be honest, these restricted wayspots are usually used as anchors by one faction which makes it impossible to shift the map and leaves the game in a dead-end situation. (I'm talking about Ingress gameplay here. I wouldn't know about PGO.) Where is the fun in that? Establish an untouchable blue / green area and sit on it forever : this is not how I envisaged the game.
As for the difference between how accessing a PRP and a restricted area are felt by the residents, judging from the over reactions I have seen, well, there is no difference. And funnily enough, when a player from the same faction as the one holding this restricted POI "trespasses", say, to upgrade it, there is no reaction then. So again, this arrangement in Niantic rules does not encourage fairness.
So, these restricted-access POIs are a big deal for Ingress, but most Pokemon Go players don't realize this. (I play both.) It's easy to see the argument that they are unfair if you know how Ingress works, but there's nothing particularly unfair about them in Pokemon Go because every gym and pokestop is essentially the same as every other gym and pokestop. You can just go somewhere else. In Ingress, you can't just go to an "identical" portal because that's not how the game works.
Something that Ingress players need to understand about Pokemon Go is that these stops actually increase fairness by allowing more players stops and gyms they can access close to their home or place of business without having to live or work in a city. In Pokemon Go, quantity of stops and gyms is important in a way that isn't quite the same in Ingress.
Maybe the idea of "fairness" in relation to these stops is diametrically opposed in Ingess vs Pokemon Go. It seems unlikely Niantic will ever change their position. Remember, the only reason single-family PRP wayspots are denied is because Niantic was sued.
Every POI is accessible only to certain players. A player must be able to physically travel to that location and access it, and nobody can go everywhere.
The rest of this conversation is specific to Ingress, but will suffice to look at the Ingress Intel map, because there are some gigantic triangles out there that have been in place for a long time.
When it comes to single family home properties the prohibition is in part due to a lawsuit. People also move and even if the person that owned the house wanted a wayspot there, the new owners may not want strangers loitering in front of their house, especially groups of Pokémon Go players if it became a gym.
Well, it potentially could matter in Ingress due to the way the mechanics of linking portals works. It really depends on the location of other portals in the area.
Hey @MargariteDVille-ING, would you happen to have a link to a complete version of the settlement agreement?
https://www.scribd.com/document/399721150/Pokemon-Go-Nuisance-Complaint-Proposed-Settlement#from_embed