Neighborhood Parks
TorvoTeratos-PGO
Posts: 161 ✭✭✭
So how do Neighborhood Parks work with the 40 m distance from private residences? Are parks and park features not valid if they're less than 40 m away from a house? This would take away a lot of stops already in our town because many of our parks are within non-gated communities and surrounded by private residences even though they're open, public parks.
Is the 40 m distance only applicable for schools?
Please help. I thought I understood the guidelines, but a recent nomination rejection showed me that I clearly don't, and I don't want to be spamming people or wasting people's time when you're already kindly volunteering so much time to this.
Best Answers
-
Perringaiden-ING
Posts: 124 ✭✭✭
Submit them, and if there's a requirement for a 40m exclusion requested by nearby residents, they will be denied or removed.
Easier to ask forgiveness than permission.
-
0X00FF00-ING
Posts: 769 ✭✭✭✭✭
“Does the placement of the POI encourage trespassing onto the PRP in order to gain access and/or interact with the proposed wayspot?”
Answers
Submit them, and if there's a requirement for a 40m exclusion requested by nearby residents, they will be denied or removed.
Easier to ask forgiveness than permission.
“Does the placement of the POI encourage trespassing onto the PRP in order to gain access and/or interact with the proposed wayspot?”
If the above isn't the case, it is 100% valid.
People who have residences adjacent or very close to parks do so knowing there is a level of public traffic that will at least be near their homes at times. They enjoy the benefits of being close to parkland, it is also incumbent on them that they accept public use of these spaces.
Unfortunately, if they request a 40m removal around their property, they still get it.
Especially in America "knowing what's around you when you buy" doesn't stop entitlement.
Yeah I think Niantic take a pretty obvious line on this one. What I would like to know is how often these removal requests occur? Surely 99% of the time, the only people who would know that a waypoint is within 40m of their home would be people who play Niantic games. Why would they want them to be removed if they are indeed in the public park space?
At one point after the court case, there were apparently a lot of requests saying "Please ensure there are no locations within 40m of my house" regardless of whether there were any near them or not. So there's plenty of pre-existing dead spots. But compared to the sum total of inhabited land? I imagine it's an infinitesimally small percent.
In terms of new requests, it's probably more when people get annoyed with crowds, and find out what they're doing, they then know that there's "Something to do with that Pokemon go here" and someone on their Facebook group will tell them how to contact Niantic.
More often, it's local landowners who notice groups of players, discover what they are doing, and figure out how to contact Niantic. In my local area I know of two churches, one cemetery, and a high school that requested removal, and all POI were removed. In those areas, no pokemon or HPWU spawns ever appear, though oddly enough a dense layer of xm still blankets the ground.
All that a dense layer of XM means is that there is a hight level of mobile phone use there. My local supermarket car park is covered in XM....
What I mean is, areas with dense xm usually correspond with high density of pokemon in Go and foundables/items in HP. But if a landowner requests removal, not only can Niantic block POI, but they can also prevent those spawns from popping up as well. But... for whatever reason, xm still appears in those blocked out areas. I can walk around the school where I work and fill up my xm bar before I get halfway from my classroom to my mailbox, but all foundables vanish without a trace when I get more than 100 feet within the edge of the property.