It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.
Sign In with Ingress Sign In with Pokémon GO
the above was rejected as being a PRP or a FARM PMSL .
suggestions to reviewers??
PRP is wrong, but it's not a valid nomination. Generic street signs aren't valid. Cycle routes aren't valid (if it was a joint cycle/walking trail and named not numbered it could pass, but this isn't).
thats fine i accept that but is this yet another example of sloppy reviewers not doing the job properly?
or maybe the rejection options need to be changed in the selection to assist our learned friends in making the correct choice?
you know easy like
1 not permissable
2 ineligible due to rules or guidelines
3 description issues
am all for constructive comments but when its a wasted nomination and reviewers cant be bothered to assist with the real reason why
it gets VERY frustrating.
Since it hasn't been mentioned, if the building to the left of the sidewalk is, in fact, a single-family private residence (which I can't tell from the photo), then PRP is a valid rejection reason. Per Niantic, PRP extends all the way to the street, regardless of the actual legal status of the sidewalk or whatever is in front of the property.
No it doesn't and no they haven't said that
People choose random reasons ether to avoid having to type something in when selecting "Doesn't meet criteria" or because they think it avoids triggering a cooldown.
As for why this was rejected, it is a cycling route for a game that is about pedestrian exploration. The route also appears to be part of the normal street/road network and the signs themselves are nothing more than street signs. It does not qualify as a trail marker because it is not for pedestrians nor follows an off-road coarse.
Huh? That's like the first thing you learn here. It's why Little Free Libraries are rejected, even if they are between the sidewalk and the street.
I think the line as to where private property ends may be different for different countries. Certainly in the UK, people do not consider their property to go all the way to the road/pavement. For the vast majority of residential areas in the UK, the council owns the grass verges and pavements, not the property owner, so something on a verge or pavement outside the property would not be considered PRP in the UK.
That's likely true, but for Wayfarer purposes, the legal status is irrelevant. You're not expected to know the laws of every country or municipality you review in. For Wayfarer, PRP extends all the way to the road regardless of the actual legal status.
They have never said that.
PRP goes up to and includes anything on the boundary wall/fence/verge.
They have NEVER said it includes the pavement outside of a property
If that's the case, then so many things would become ineligible in the UK, including most of these postboxes everyone loves to discuss at length! So I think this just can't be true for UK submitters/reviewers. It just doesn't work like that here, and certainly your average reviewer/submitter who doesn't read this forum wouldn't know to consider it.
From the February 2018 AMA:
Q48: Little Free Libraries... when reviewing potential portals in OPR, should LFL be approved if they are next to the road or sidewalk within the county/city right-of-way, but the lawn they are on is owned and maintained by a residential home privately owned? These seem to be on county/city property and private property at the same time. It seems the LFL is inviting the public to stop by. What do you say?
A48: According to NIA OPS, If it's on someone's private residential property (right-of-way or not), it does not meet criteria. If it's on a common area that's not associated to any private residence, that should be ok.It's hard for us to know the local nuances of legal access for a global game, so as a general rule, if it's on the 'Do Not Submit' list, do not submit them.
I would read that to include the sidewalk. I will say, that does reverse a couple answers from prior AMA.
Then you've mis read it / misinterpreted the answer.
It clearly says if its on someones PRP then its invalid. It doesn't say that the sidewalk is included.
What it actually explains is that if a LFL is on someones front lawn but reachable from the sidewalk then the LFL is invalid because it is on PRP.
Being able to reach it from the sidewalk is not sufficent becuse the POI would be on PRP.
They have not ever, said the sidewalk itself is invalid.
They have said that just standing on the sidewalk next to a POI that is on PRP, is not sufficent for the POI to be valid.
"According to NIA OPS, If it's on someone's private residential property (right-of-way or not) ..."
The question was about items next to sidewalks, but the answer sure seems to state that items located on the right-of-way are also disallowed. The sidewalk is part of the right-of-way (as is the verge, which you mentioned is a no-go).
You have misinterpreted that answer.
Right of way, as in allowed access to the POI if on PRP.
A LFL is on the edge of a PRP by the sidewalk.
For people to access the LFL, whomever owns the PRP has granted/implied right of way / right of access to the public to access something on their PRP.
Niantic point blankly state that if it is on PRP then it is invalid, there for the above granted access / right of way to the LFL is nullified, hence their statement.
They have not, nor have ever stated that PRP covers the sidewalk. It only covers the property and its boundaries.
In the UK, the pavement / sidewalk is the property of the local Council. Something on the front wall of the house in the OP photo would fall under PRP rules, but anything beyond that on the pavement would not.
I know this as am British. But j do find it bizarre that cycle routes are declined because they actually promote exercise 🤔
However thats not the discussion here for me post.
I like all whats been said so far as advice
But i cannot help bug wonder if Niantic could change the criteria slightly as many have stated the PRP side is incorrect
So maybe a review of additional guidelines might be in order ?
But essentially I know until criteria is changed that this nomination is not worth bothering with lol
Regarding those cycle routes, I am not from the UK, but in reading those discussions, one reason they are not eligible is because Niantics focus is "adventures on foot" not "on bike" (or horseback, or car). I also believe I have seen others say they are more similar to road signs than trail markers.
I think the discussion about PRP or not for sidewalk, rejecting the signs etc is missing a part here (sorry if I read over it).
A lot of Little Free Libraries, Insect Hotels etc on someone's lawn or fence were place there by the owners themselves, on their PRP. The signs shown in the example aren't private property and were place by the town on public access.
About the signs themselves, they do not look like Trail Markers, but rather road signs, just as you have for cars, to indicate the direction they need to go to reach a certain town. They do not promote exercise, they just give you directions.
An actual Trail is meant to guide you around the area, discover interesting locations, buildings etc.