Criteria shift for PRP?
patsufredo-PGO
Posts: 4,214 ✭✭✭✭✭
Lately I saw that invalid Wayspots appeal for Wayspots on the outer/side walls are being rejected. Just take a look at this thread below:
Not only that, I've recently reported a sculpture that is carved on side walls of a PRP, and the report was rejected. Even the appeal got rejected too when I'm using support chat to appeal the rejection. (The chat was cleared, unfortunately)
@NianticTintino-ING @NianticAaron @NianticLC can we demand any clarifications about what's happening here? Are any objects on side walls of PRP acceptable now?
Comments
half the forum threads “I can’t get a pokestop approved”
the other half “I can’t believe this got approved. Remove it”
To me, as a resident of USA, the batman symbol logo is not a clearly residential property. However, obviously things look different in Brazil and I take you at your word that this is residential. I'm wondering if this could be a cultural issue where whoever is reviewing from Niantic thinks it looks non-residential, though to you, being a local in the area, it looks clearly residential.
Where are the folks with "where are my Portal/Pokestop in my game"?
I'm right here 🤭
I'm with you on this.
I'm not a US resident, I'm European and the report didn't convince me that the property is single-family residential, which is the key in such cases. Just based on the pictures in the report and Google Maps, it could easily be the wall of a complex that includes several small homes.
Here in Brazil its a Common pratice to have relatives and such live in the same lot but in different houses. Theres 4,5 houses on the same addresses, but its not like a condo or a building with apartments. If having more than a house and more than 1 family living there refutes the claim of PRP inappriopriate POI, then almost every portal removed in cities like Guarulhos in Brazil are válid.
Several generations of the same family living in the same household is still a single family. The criteria say that nothing on a single-family private residential property or farm is acceptable, nothing else.
These multi-generational complexes therefore are something of a grey area. In my opinion if all residents belong to the same household (one postbox, one set of trash cans etc.), it should be considered ineligible. If there are multiple households, however, I'd consider objects located in communal areas eligible.
There's a similar pattern in the city that I grew up in, but a very different situation-- residential duplexes. They're essentially two houses stuck together. I think that these would be considered PRP because the homeowner(s) own the land and they/their guests are the only ones who could be reasonably expected to use the land.
In the US there are also things called ADUs. Imagine a private house where the homeowner built a small cottage in their back yard. They may have family living there or they may rent it out. I would still consider that PRP.
Here's another example that I'm super familiar with-- a complex that I used to own a condo in. Each unit has its own private front courtyard and a back yard specifically for use of the person who owns/lives in that unit. I would 100% consider those yards private residential property because that area is designated specifically for the people who live in that unit.
There's also communal property, though. If the median in the foreground of this photo contained, say, a small dog park I would consider that not-PRP. (The median isn't the best example, though it does have pedestrian access because there's parking up against it. It's just one that I could find a good photo for.)
Basically, I think it's a judgement call depending on the area and how it's used.