New "Private residential property" definition
WandHerring-PGO
Posts: 139 ✭✭✭✭
Hi everyone,
I think most of you know what this topic will be about. The definition of "private residential property" has always been rather contentious among the community: where does a private property stops, is gated community considered private, and how about multi-tenant buildings...?
The old Word of God was that "private residential property" covered single family property and farmland, up and including the sidewalk. However the new criteria invalidated older official guideline and but the new rules are once again woefully vague.
So my question is simple: does the definition of "private residential property" has been changed with the criteria? If yes, how does the term must be understood now?
I know it's among some of the more popular question of the upcoming AMA, but I don't think we should have to wait to get clarification for a situation that concern easily 5-10% of the submissions (at least in my region where potales -small traditional religious altars directly carved in buildings walls- are everywhere).
Comments
Todo aquello que este en la fachada de una casa o edificio de viviendas es una propiedad privada
"Everything that is on the facade of a house
or apartment buildingis private property".Edit of my previous post : Apartment building doesn't apply to PRP rejection.
Otherwise, since you are resurfacing an old topic, this question has been answered on November AMA.
https://niantic.helpshift.com/a/wayfarer/?l=en&p=web&s=other-faq&f=niantic-wayfarer-november-ama
Can you clarify the definition of “private residential property?” Are multi-family residences included in this rejection reason? What about Wayspots that are within 40m of a private residence?
The considerations when looking at private residential property have not changed with the criteria refresh. Considering that multi-family residences like apartment complexes can have publicly accessible amenities (like playground equipment), these could still be eligible as long as they meet all of the acceptance criteria. Nominations that appear to be within 40m of private, single-family residential property should be very closely reviewed to make sure they are not on private residential property, and that they are accessible from locations not on private residential property.
Well, your quote from the AMA directly invalidates the other person's answer: the facade of an apartment building -would it be artfully decorated- is a publicly accessible amenity on multi-family residence ground that meets acceptance criteria.
😅 I was reading too fast.
You are correct. If it meets eligibility criteria and is located on facade of apartment building (not "single family"), PRP rejection does not apply.
Where has Niantic ever stated "up and including the sidewalk"? I have seen this claim many times, but I have never seen it from Niantic.
As far as I know, Niantic has only ever spoken of "ON" single family private residential property, and on the wall or fence of a single family private residential property. This includes "right-of-way". But "right-of-way" or "easements" are area's inside a private property, with (limited) access for the public. Not area's outside of the private property, between the property and the street. I have never seen a statement from Niantic that anything outside of the prp should be considered as part of the property.
We already had a nice discussion with @0X00FF00-ING here :
I asked the same question there. It was not answered there.
I was told on a Spanish speaking Facebook group that private residence includes hotels and other businesses because not on public land and they can restrict entry.
At which point I wanted to pound my head against a wall.
Facebook is a constant source of misinformation.
Si alguien hace una pintada que no se a autorizado en una fachada o un jugador decora de alguna manera para solicitarlo eso es aceptable
Para ustedes que es estar decorado?
Si se trata de una vivienda unifamiliar la definición de PRP incluye el exterior de paredes o cercas por lo que una decoración o mural sobre las mismas igualmente debe ser rechazado.
Decoración puede ser una escultura, friso, escudo, bajorrelieve, etc. Una pintura sobre una pared se considera un mural o un graffiti según sus características. Graffitis que son simplemente un nombre o firma deben ser rechazados.
Word of God from last year:
If a work of art, statue, etc. is on private property, it is ineligible. This includes if it's attached to a fence, wall, etc.
It's pre criteria update, but I doubt it got changed.
Decoración puede ser una escultura, friso, escudo, bajorrelieve, etc. Graffitis que son simplemente un nombre o firma deben ser rechazados.
Desde mi punto de vista las decoraciones mencionadas solo podrían ser aceptadas si es muy peculiar, porque que una persona ponga unos azulejos con la imagen de una virgen, un santo o cualquier cosa similar me parece muy común.
Por desgracia los grafitis los aceptan con mucha facilidad.
Youve misunderstood
People are constantly incorrectly claiming, without proof, that Niantic have said anything on the sidewalk outside a PRP is invalid.
On the PRP and boundary wall / fence etc then yes invalid, but NOT if its on the sidewalk outside a PRP
Some Hotels could be considered prp of they don't allow access unless you pay imo, but I know that's just my opinion and probably not correct.
No, unfortunately it's not just your opinion.
Yes, that opinion is absolutely and definitely wrong.
@gazzas89-PGO , what @Kellerrys-ING has said is totally correct.
Paying to access a hotel doesn't change it from being a business to being PRP. I fail to see how you can even consider that as being possible
Looks like "God" says the exact same thing as I do.
The November AMA is post-3.0, and @NianticCasey-ING says this explicitly:
”The considerations when looking at private residential property have not changed with the criteria refresh”
And in particular, this would directly mean that the previous conversations about PRP and “easements” and walls and sidewalks and everything else is still in effect. Including that Niantic doesn’t want to make separate rulings on this topic on a case-by-case or country-by-country or municipality-by-municipality basis. One definition, worldwide.
In short, the **** of land between a property and the street is where the “easement” is. This is where the municipality can add or remove public infrastructure without the permission of the adjoining property owner, including but not limited to sidewalks, utility poles, fire hydrants, widening or narrowing the road. The property owner may or may not legally own the **** of land (it may or may not be owned by the municipality), it may or may not be defined as extending all the way to the centre of the road, it may or may not be defined as a specific distance from the centre of the road.
The property owner is still required to maintain the property (ie grass cutting), and is normally restricted from certain usage (ie hedges or other things that can obstruct sight lines).
But in ALL cases, that **** of “easement” land is still considered part of the PRP, as pertains to Wayfarer.
The purpose of restricting this area is identical to the SAME THING that created the big kerfuffle and lawsuits: objects in AR games can be considered an “attractive nuisance”. Niantic promised to restrict placement of these nuisances where they would/could impact owners of PRP.
I keep forgetting that s.trips of land are always considered to be “naughty” in this forum @NianticCasey-ING
Yes, it was a fairytale that anything outside the prp should be considered part of the prp before Wayfarer 3.1, and it is still a fairytale now.
An "easement" is by definition a part of a private property (residential or otherwise). The public right-of-way (or the area that is public land, where the street and the sidewalk are, but doesn't necessarily stop at the end of the sidewalk) is not part of a private property.
In all definitions Niantic have ever given about prp, they have always said that anything ON prp, or on the fence or wall of prp is to be rejected. They have never stated, all the way to the street. If prp would extend all the way to the street, why not explicitly state that? And why talk about walls and fences, as those would be automatically included if prp extended all the way to the street?
In conclusion, here are some recent examples of wayspots that were restored by Niantic, that would fall under your definition of prp:
A painted pole on the grass between a prp and a street:
A shrine between farmland (should be treated the same as prp) and a street:
I gave you the screenshot and link before you just refuse to accept it. Move on
There was nothing in that screenshot or link that said anything that contradicts what I am saying.
More evidence: This is from the October 2017 Ingress AMA:
Q48: Hi Andrew! In the portal submission guidelines it states that Private Residential is not allowed. Are portals that are on the public easement part of private residential property (such as a sidewalk) and publicly accessible allowed?
A48: A sidewalk, that probably fits the bill. Something in someone's front yard... probably not.
November 2017 Ingress AMA:
Q66: Should public easement be considered private property for opr purposes if it is directly in front of private property but still between the sidewalk and the street? A portal on a public easement could easily be ultrastriked and captured by an agent walking down the sidewalk without any trespassing on private property occurring.
A66: By definition, a public easement provides the right of the general public to use certain streets, highways, paths, airspace (according to legal-dictionary.com...). So I wouldn't consider it private property.
The "right-of-way" for my easement means you can walk along the sidewalk that traverses my property, not that you can loiter there and/or be a nuisance. It's not public land, it's MY land. You're still trespassing if I ask you to leave.
I'm just not allowed to block access to the pedestrian or vehicular traffic that needs to traverse it.
In short, it's still my PRP.
Yes, for your easement. When it is your land.
When it is public land, it is not part of your land, and it is not private residential property.
Private residential property extends to the property lines. This includes any easements that are part of the property. And any structure that marks the property line, like walls, fences, trees, bushes, etc... It doesn't include any area's that are not part of the property.
It is very rare for the property to extend all the way to the street. However many people in the US have the misconception that their property extends all the way to the street.
Just to be clear: we are discussing the sidewalk and grassy verge, here, right? Homeowners have the right to limit passage at the roadsides in front of their property? Like a minimum speed requirement?
Do you get to make some people walk in the road or cross to the other side? Do you limit the number of times they can pass each way?
What are your enforcement provisions? Sounds like a really interesting neighborhood!
Some above quoted some AMAs from 2017. They ignored later AMAs from 2018. A re-reminder, that @NianticCasey-ING explicitly in the November AMA stated that Niantic's definition of PRP has not changed.
But from Feb 2018:
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.
The "right-of-way" is simply that: you are allowed to pass through, I may not restrict your movement along the sidewalk/easement in front of my house. But it's still my property, and I still have every right to ask you to leave immediately; if you do not then you are trespassing. No, it doesn't matter which side of the sidewalk you're standing on.
ON someone's private residential property.
People are talking about OUTSIDE of someone's private residential property, as in NOT ON someone's private residential property.
Right-of-way as in ON someone's private residential property. Not PUBLIC right-of-way, which is not on someone's private residential property.
If it's on a common area that's not associated to any private residence, that should be ok.
If sidewalks are part of your property where you live, than that's fine. Then those area's are ineligible. But your situation is a vast minority. In most area's around the world, the street and an area surrounding it are not privately owned. They are public space. Not private residential property. And in those area's, it is perfectly fine to have wayspots.
I didn't ignore anything. The februari 2018 AMA does not contradict the 2017 AMA's.