K-12 and its surroundings.
Your recent answer shows that the K-12 criterion applies not only to the school grounds (fenced area), but also to the surrounding areas that are not part of the school, do I understand correctly?
In Poland school cannot be the owner of the land, and it can only manage the area designated for it by the city. School grounds do not have to occupy the entire property, therefore the area managed by the school must be fenced, as it was in case here:
The thread was closed, so i don't know if you are going to answer there.
Schools in Poland also cannot be the owners of monuments, their owners and administrators are city offices. The monument itself is located in the area belonging to the city and it is publicly available, which can be seen, among other things, in the spherical photo:
and photos taken by Google:
https://goo.gl/maps/r2NbtaEEC9WgHRGM6
Yes it is near to the school but it is not at school grounds.
@NianticVK Could you please answer that for me? It is not appeal, I just wanted to clear things out.
Comments
In the Regulation of the Minister of National Education and Sport of December 31, 2002 (document available on the government website) we can read:
Paragraph 7. 1. The grounds of the School and the facility are fenced.
And as you can see, the Monument is not fenced, so it cannot be a school area.
Or maybe you can help with this. Is K-12 only school grounds or is it surroundings too? @NianticGiffard
Niantic will still treat that portion of land as 'school grounds'. Besides, there is a side entrance door that connect the area to the school building that Niantic will assume it belongs to the school.
No, 'manipulating' OSM maps won't help. (And so does my theory debunked.)
Who's talking about OSM? I just qouted Polish law, which says that school grounds must be fenced.
Niantic doesn't want people going onto the grounds of a school to play their games.
It doesn't matter if that monument is legally not owned by the school, it's right in front of the entrance of the school. Niantic doesn't want people hanging out there playing their games.
But in this particular case, the entrance to the school building is on one of the main roads in the town. There is no fence on this side, the school is entered directly from the public sidewalk. More precisely, in order to enter the school, you need to walk along the path leading through the lawn belonging to the town and within which the monument is located. Therefore, I would like a niantic employee to be able to specify whether K-12 applies only to the school grounds or the surroundings, and what exactly is understood by the surroundings, how far something must be located so that it would not be considered K-12. There are also a few cases in Poland when, there is a kindergarten/school and there is a library on the plot next door, should the library be removed because it is too close to the kindergarten?
I don't believe you will ever get the type of clarification you're asking for. The rule is "no wayspots on K-12 school grounds," but exactly what that means is up to the interpretation of the Niantic employee reviewing the case from their perspective in the U.S. They're not going to do a deep dive into the laws of the particular municipality and country and try to interpret the legal ownership status of the exact square meter of land the wayspot sits on. They're going to look at the satellite view, see that the monument (in this case) is located in a 20-25 meter wide **** of grass between a school building and the road, see that there are entrances to the building on both sides of the monument (one of which is explicitly labeled as a school entrance), and go "yep, that looks like exactly what we [in the U.S.] would call 'on school grounds,'" and remove it.
@flatmatt-PGO I understand what you mean.
I also believe that if I am able to present a legal act that clearly states that the school grounds must be fenced and the wayspot has the right to return. Unfortunately I did not manage to do so in the appeal, because my thread was closed thanks to a certain user.
What I care most about is how niantic employees will react to the paragraph presented in the act of the Polish Ministry of National Education and Sport. Each country has its own laws that should also be taken into account in appeals, but unfortunately I have not been able to present this most important piece of evidence in time.
At this stage I would think the chance of a change of direction by Niantic is low. As appeals are new we will all be learning from the process.
My approach would be to do a fresh nomination, with links and details in the supplementary information to cover the points. Yes it got rejected before, but perhaps with an improved nomination, it could get through and as they will local reviewers they should be more receptive/aware of what is public and what is considered school.
There is nothing to lose in doing this and if the original goes through you have it in anyway. Looks like a way of doubling your chances.
It didn't get rejected, Niantic removed it after it had been approved and told the OP why. He already asked them to reinstate it. Nominating it again after Niantic removed it and denied his request to have it reinstated may be viewed as abuse, especially since the OP has previously been suspended for submitting nominations that don't meet criteria.
It was removed through one of the abusive, massive requests based on the guesswork of one user, but to restore something, evidence is needed. Unfortunately, my appeal was closed before I presented the most important evidence in the case, i.e. a fragment of the Polish legal act.
I can show my nominations and each of them met the criteria, unfortunately they were rejected due to the lack of knowledge of the reviewers. I had to nominate my local comic book store 17 times to be approved. I did not get any answers on this subject from Niantic, which nominations did not meet the criterion because according to their regulations, each of my nominations met them.
As you can see, my nominations "grossly violate the criteria" and the problem is not the lack of knowledge of the reviewers who have not checked that the criteria have changed ...
I submitted each subsequent nomination after receiving the rejection e-mail. So this ban was as valid as the rejection of my nominations ...
Ah sorry, I had lost track and mixed up some info/posts.
I Better remember to not post after midnight
I'm in awe of your perseverance on that Comic Book store. It simply goes to show how terrible reviewers can be. The comments from folks blaming lazy nominations submissions are tired and worn out.
Thank you, but as you can see, the reward for my persistence in the fight against ignorant reviewers was blocking my wayfarer account for 30 days 😅
I see that you have, by coincidence, left out of your screen capture the several previous rejected submissions where, instead of using a photo of any sort, you uploaded an image of their logo, which is specifically forbidden under Wayfarer rules.
That's true in first 5 submission I used logo provided to me by the owner. We wanted to make it look like the sponsored Pokestops.
Still only 1st & 3nd attempt had "3rd party photo" as rejection reason. Mostly rejection reason I got for this comic store are 16x "other criteria" and 12x "Private Property".
It sounds like you admitted you were conspiring with a business owner to get the equivalent of a sponsored wayspot without paying the fees for a sponsorship agreement.
What you just wrote made me realize that you have no idea what sponsored Pokestops are and in which countries such a subscription is available for local companies.
I admitted that I used logo that is on the store website and I have spoken about it with the store owner. I understand that the "3rd party photo" rejection option is to prevent of creating fake wayspots but to be honest it doesn't work. Since Niantic allows the nomination of places like local comic book stores, that itself is already a "promotion" of such a store.
Still the main reason for rejecting my nomination was the lack of knowledge of the reviewers, there was no "business facility" so they chose anything to reject the nomination. These reviews were guided by the fact that "in the past, such a nomination was not allowed, so it probably still does not meet the criteria".
Even though the application for the program for small businesses is not yet available outside of the US, they plan to expand it and have made sponsorship agreements with companies in Europe and Asia.
Use of a graphic of a company logo for a nomination rather than a photo of the POI is not an option for user submitted stops, even if there was not the additional rejection criteria for using 3rd party images.
Ok, but excluding these 5 attempts, the nomination was rejected 11 times due to the lack of knowledge of the reviewers.
I would like to note once again that I did not receive any e-mail about receiving the blockade, and I received the mere explanation of the situation after more than two weeks of talking to a Niantic employee. Was it really a ban for "nominations that did not meet the criteria", since finding the reason and providing such information took so long? It must also be admitted that many times users have received wayfarer accounts blocked due to a server error.