Private property accessible to limited membership only
dataL0ss-ING
Posts: 9 ✭✭
If there is a waypoint on land that is gated off and only accessible by purchasing a membership to a club does it meet the criteria to be a valid waypoint. The membership requires filling out an application, paying an annual fee, and is capped in the number of people that will be accepted.
Comments
Yes, it's a valid wayspot.
Yes - Niantic have said this many times.
Even beyond that, Niantic will not remove waypoints in high security areas. They're very consistent that as long as it's not private, *residential*, single-family, property, it's fine.
Eligible as per November 2020 AMA.
Wish the people rejecting my POI on a golf course knew these rules...instead of rejecting for lack of pedestrian access.
This post is about improper use of the private property rejection. If you have something getting rejected for pedestrian access, that's a different issue. The reviewers don't think it's safe or able to be touched in that case.
I disagree. Even though they used no pedestrian access as their reason, common sense tells anyone that a golf course has pedestrian access as they walk on the grass and this submission showed a lot of grass.
So I assume they used that reason to say people do not have access to it/it's in a members only area and 'no pedestrian' access is the closest they could get to 'no public access/its on private ground/needs membership" even though that's just as stupid as the other rejection reasons
The similarities are blatantly obvious
Niantic's guidance on golf courses was once that anything on the course itself should be rejected, that submissions should only be accepted at the clubhouse or similar areas.
One was a pub/bar in golf course grounds and the other was a sign for a golf training area on a named trail that went between the golf course and the training area gate
Although I understand that the golf course itself as a means of promoting exercise (many golf course entrances have PINs) and the clubhouse as a means of promoting interaction qualify, I seem to recall that individual course markers, cup pins, etc. on the golf course are ineligible.
They are eligible to be waypoints... but that doesn't mean they're great waypoints. IOW They aren't 1* reject unsafe... but most people would say they aren't 5* awesome either.
Golf courses are unsafe for those who aren't playing. Even their groundskeepers wear hard hats - and they're looking for golfers, not at their phones.
There is no difference in the evaluation of something with limited access as compared to totally available. It all depends on what is submitted. For example I would rate a club house of a golf club with its bars and social space that same as any bar social space.
Access to golf courses varies around the world. It is very common in the U.K. for there to be footpaths crossing a course. Last time I went to St Andrews and one of worlds most famous golf courses access was very easy. Yes you need to be cognisant of what the golfers are doing but there is no difference from someone playing a game or being in deep conversation with someone they are walking with.