Should objects on private property ALWAYS be disapproved?

Hi @NianticAtlas , Hi @NianticGiffard

Should objects on private property ALWAYS be disapproved?


-- Question Points --

(1) Listed in Rejection Criteria

And NianticGiffard said.


(2) But In Japan, there are many city public information boards attached to the walls of private homes.

(3) Of course, they are installed by City Hall and is intended for public access. And they are accessible from public streets.


- Some specific examples -

Note that all of these information boards are actually portals.


Thus, in Japan, public information boards are sometimes placed on private property for public use. The reason is that the land area is small and densely populated with private houses. 

Should I still reject anything that is on private property, no exceptions?

I would be willing to approve it if it is set up by a public body for public use and open to the public.

Am I wrong?

Comments

  • SeerUchan-INGSeerUchan-ING Posts: 8 ✭✭✭

    @WheelTrekker-ING

    Thanks for your input. Indeed, if one simply accepts the rejection criteria, it is ineligible. However, I find it difficult to judge because it qualifies as "something that stimulates people to communicate". And I have also heard that NIA did not remove these when actually reported.

  • SeerUchan-INGSeerUchan-ING Posts: 8 ✭✭✭

    Hi @WheelTrekker-ING .

    Thanks for the Comment. I think you are right.

    Btw, Please tell me one thing. About "overrules any acceptance criteria", Where is this clearly stated?

    I know that "must meet" is used for Acceptance Criteria and "may be entirely rejected"used for Rejection Criteria.

    I think this difference of expression is NIANTIC's policy.



  • jokeinsurance-PGOjokeinsurance-PGO Posts: 199 ✭✭✭

    Please correct me if I am wrong but isn't there a gray area when it comes to homes that are on the end of rowhouses?

  • WheelTrekker-INGWheelTrekker-ING Posts: 2,650 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @SeerUchan-ING It doesn't matter the words that I use. You should look at the facts and how any wayspot that it's in PRP is removed after an appeal in the forums and none are returned if Niantic thinks that its a single family building.

    You can send one nomination to the current wayfarer challenge if you think that it should be clarified further.

  • TheZodiac007-PGOTheZodiac007-PGO Posts: 815 ✭✭✭✭✭

    If they were on apartments or basically anywhere that isn’t a private residence that could be a different story though @SeerUchan-ING. There was a lawsuit because of angry homeowners in the past



  • jokeinsurance-PGOjokeinsurance-PGO Posts: 199 ✭✭✭

    Please correct me if I am wrong but isn't there a gray area when it comes to waypoints located at townhouses/rowhomes?

    I had an appeal rejected for a waypoint of a plaque located on the front door of a townhouse/rowhouse near my place of work, which is why I'm asking.

  • Elijustrying-INGElijustrying-ING Posts: 1,564 ✭✭✭✭✭

    in a row of terrrace houses each is considered a single residence. So wherever it is on the row if the plaque is as you describe on the front door it is not eligible.

  • JillJilyJabadoo-PGOJillJilyJabadoo-PGO Posts: 1,013 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited September 1
  • sogNinjaman-INGsogNinjaman-ING Posts: 3,216 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Terraced houses are different from "multi-family" occupied buildings.

  • Elijustrying-INGElijustrying-ING Posts: 1,564 ✭✭✭✭✭

    If you think about it all that has happened in a row of terrace houses is that space between the individual buildings has shrunk to zero. They are still individual buildings and individual residences, as opposed to 1 building then divided into multiple residences.

  • X0bai-PGOX0bai-PGO Posts: 1,334 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited September 3

    PRP applies to single family residences, and anything on PRP, including external walls, should always be rejected.

  • AhaMcCoy-PGOAhaMcCoy-PGO Posts: 26 ✭✭

    My major issue about all the "PRP overrules any acceptance criteria" things is that it's hard to determinate what is the "private" part from PRP.

    I'm pretty sure some admin already made an statement about something similar. I mean, more like about POI that are on the sidewalk. First, we have to know that they said "Reviewers should avoid trying to determine whether those locations are public or private based on local laws".

    I mean, not even US laws are clear about private propriety and sidewalks. And it's very confusing. Depending on were you live, your propriety can expand until the middle of the street, BUT it's not 100% private, since people are allowed to walk through the sidewalk and drive around the street. In other places not even the sidewalk is part of your propriety. Same applies to other places in the word. In a residential area, the sidewalk and the street can't be "private". Even if sometimes you're obligated by law to take care of the sidewalk, they must be public. Human beings walk. Well we used to. So the governments must determine that people need a place to walk safely.

    Also yes, the sidewalks are designated to transit. You can't block a sidewalk with a car or anything else. Doesn't matter if the sidewalk is part of a propriety or 100% public.

    Just one small issure about that are the suburbs in the USA. A lot of those have no visible sidewalk, since they just use cars for everything and they don't even go visit their neighbors. But I guess it makes the decision easier. No visible sidewalk = "ineligible due Pedestrian Access". Also if they don't walk over here, even if there is a POI, how are they going to play the game?

    Now technically speaking, about the photos from Japan, let's suppose the propriety ends at the wall, which is probably the scenario, because I'm sure they would use ever inch from their terrain, since they're very small. So anything after the wall is public, right? Like, let's say there's a wall between you and your neighbor. And you place something against the wall. Will your neighbor claim that the thing touching the wall is theirs?  

    Okay, I made my statements about what is public and stuff, so now I'll play devil's advocate. The admins also said that POI on sidewalks are ok, as long as they don't interfere with any residence. And we have to agree. Even if the sidewalk is public, having people stopping by your windows, door or driveway could be problematic.

    So let's have this small image:

    I added "A", "B" and "C" to show the 3 different kinds of propriety I talked about. I mean technically those are the lot lines, showing your propriety. Now let's say there's a clock like this right where the red target is:

    It was a gift from another country yadda yadda and it's on the side walk. It's far away from any entrance from the house, so in a situation like that, in my opinion, it should be a legit POI.

    But if the scenario was like this, instead:

    Or if the POI was too close from the driveway, based on what the admins said, it should not be a POI. And it makes sense.

    Back to the information boards, again in my opinion, if those walls are high enough, I think they don't interfere with the residence. But the third photo shows an information board next to window. So even if it's in a public place, it's not ok.

    Like I said, it's not that simple like some people think it is. I guess they don't consider that there are way too many different kinds of lot lines and property laws and definitions around the USA and world and they only think about how it is where they live, and we have to use the same criteria all around the world. A residential area in a suburb is different from a residential area downtown.

    So basically I go like "will the owner of that nearby residence think I'm weird for staying over this place for one minute?" If there's a vintage clock lamp which is kind of a tourist spot on the sidewalk, or some information boards, I'm pretty sure those are places people WILL stop there anyway.

    And again, this is my take about the criteria and what was mentioned by the admins. People may have different point of views about where the PRP/lot line starts and where it ends, but we all agree that having someone we don't know, near your residence, standing still for a minute is at least awkward. So at least make sure what you're submitting sill not make players look ****.

    Answering to the OP, if the object is on private property, YES, it should be rejected. I mean, if you can tell it's on private property. And even if it's 100% confirmed NOT on private property, you should consider if it somehow interfere with the residence. 


    PS: by the way I would reject the the information boards because they don't meet any eligibility criteria. They would have a chance if they had some kind of unique art.

  • X0bai-PGOX0bai-PGO Posts: 1,334 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited September 3

    TL;DR is inadequate here. Any time you’re trying to parse the minutiae in Wayfarer, you have already lost. If you’re writing a thesis on parsing the minutiae, forget ever winning again.

    When it comes to PRP, definitively prove that it isn’t PRP or face rejection, period.

  • MargariteDVille-INGMargariteDVille-ING Posts: 1,515 ✭✭✭✭✭

    In the U.S., there is no ambiguity about what is "Private Residential Property", aka "Single Family Residence". Every inch of the U.S. is zoned one thing or another.

    Here's a typical zoning for a Single Family Residencial Zone, usually known as R-1 zoning: https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Gardena/html/Gardena18/Gardena1812.html

    The problem is that the Wayfarer documentation is written assuming everyone, globally, has that understanding of property zoning.

  • SeerUchan-INGSeerUchan-ING Posts: 8 ✭✭✭

    @TheZodiac007-PGO 

    My apologies for the delay in my reply.

    I see, NIA has had litigation issues in the past. Thanks for the info.


    My main concern is that these city PRs are being placed on the public side of the street with the residents' permission.

    Nevertheless, if these are to be rejected because they are on private property, I think the criteria should be more stringent. Specifically, for example, if it is within 10 meters of the front door or window of a private residence, it should be rejected.


    I understood many of your views. The denial criteria should be followed.

    Thanks all for your many input.

  • Elijustrying-INGElijustrying-ING Posts: 1,564 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Having a distance from the pin is not needed,

    Major issues would occur in urban areas that have dense housing. Applying your suggestion of 10m from a door or window ( which is not far) In my area, would probably remove all but one of the religious buildings and quite a few social spaces and some artwork. This is because the houses (often with no outdoor space to side or front) and public buildings are next to each other. When there was the possibility of a 40m ban, I looked around and found that we could virtually lose everything bar a handful of POI,

    But people here generally don’t bother about what happens on the pavement outside their home. So here it would serve no purpose.

  • SeerUchan-INGSeerUchan-ING Posts: 8 ✭✭✭

    @Elijustrying-ING

    Yes, even I totally disagree with my earlier suggestion. Hahaha. My basic opinion has not changed from before. I think it is strange that a city PR board, which was approved by residents and placed on the side of a public street, is denied because it is on private property. Of course, this story is about the PR board that does not require access to private property at all, such as the one in the first photo I posted.

Sign In or Register to comment.