New "Private residential property" definition

2456

Comments

  • Theisman-INGTheisman-ING Posts: 1,001 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Apologies in advance for the crudely drawn pictures, put I think there is a misunderstanding of what people are on about.

    Take this as an example to try and clear things up

    Red is the property boundary

    Yellow is sidewalk

    The two blue lines are the road

    In this picture, the sidewalk is an easement, it goes across the property boundary and so is on PRP, therefore any POI's on the sidewalk are invalid.

    Now in this example, which is like most of the UK and lots of the US

    The property boundary finishes before the sidewalk, so it goes property boundary, sidewalk, then road.

    The sidewalk in this instance is clearly not PRP therefore any POI's on it are valid.

    People keep saying, incorectly, that in cases of the second picture, that a POI that is on the sidewalk outside a property is invalid because it is PRP, because Niantic said that they are invalid for easement sidewalks i.e. the first picture.

  • 0X00FF00-ING0X00FF00-ING Posts: 763 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Your country may not be my country, and perhaps thus why you're getting mad at my very pointed and specific definitions?

    In my country, the property line DOES extend to the centre of the roadway. I am required to maintain it, including: clearing snow/ice; mowing grass; removing weeds; cleaning up garbage. It's mine mine mine all mine, but... I just cannot stop you from walking through. The concepts of "easement" and "right-of-way" are fundamental and important property rights.

    Being "right-of-way" on an easement does NOT magically change my land into "public" land. But what the easement does is, the municipality can come in and rearrange the roads and sidewalks and ditches and fire hydrants and utility poles and electrical distribution boxes and cell phone towers as THEY see fit.

    If an object is placed on the grassy boulevard between the sidewalk and the road? It's on my property and I'm responsible for maintaining it, and making sure it is not a hazard to passers-by, whether pedestrian or vehicular.

    If an object is placed between the sidewalk and my home? It's still on my property, but not being on the "easement" or "right-of-way" then I am more free*: I can generally ignore height restrictions that would otherwise obstruct drivers' views, etc.

    *condo association, homeowners associations, etc may get their busybody noses into the mix, down to allowed colours of mailboxes and the paint on my door.

    From door to road, it's still literally PRP here. And that my specific rules may differ from your municipality's specific rules? That's where Niantic doesn't want to continuously make case-by-case rulings that vary throughout the world.

  • TWVer-INGTWVer-ING Posts: 556 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I agree with most of that. I don't agree with that you want your situation to be projected onto the entire world. Niantic doesn't want that either, as evidenced by the decisions in the "Invalid Wayspot Appeals" section threads that I linked to earlier.

    When they talk local laws, they talk about laws regarding easements. Maybe in some area's around the world, it would be okay to place wayspots on private easements. However, for the purpose of Wayfarer, anything ON private residential property is ineligible, including on all easements on the property. Anything outside of the property is fine.

  • 0X00FF00-ING0X00FF00-ING Posts: 763 ✭✭✭✭✭

    See my quote above from the Feb 2018 AMA, that they DON'T want nitpicky differing rules spread across the planet. That has a very specific logical implication, in that applying one rule the is specifically written to allow things on your easement would then also allow things on my easement.

    But if allowed on my easement, that again leaves Niantic open to PRP/nuisance lawsuits.

    I've definitely got some historical artifacts sitting on that easement in my local neighbourhood, and did indeed attempt to submit it after the 2017 AMAs cited earlier. But I gave up entirely once the Feb 2018 AMAs re-clarified more directly, that things on easements were not allowed.

  • TWVer-INGTWVer-ING Posts: 556 ✭✭✭✭✭

    There are no different rules. The rule is ON private residential property. In your case, that is up until the street, in my case (and the vast majority of cases), that is not up until the street. The sidewalk is not on the easement of my property. It is outside my property, and outside the easement of my property.

  • 0X00FF00-ING0X00FF00-ING Posts: 763 ✭✭✭✭✭

    So, to play Devil's advocate for Niantic then.

    There's a statue or artwork or historic artifact in front of an otherwise unremarkable PRP. Niantic needs to, in very simple language that will apply in ALL cases, write down easy-to-understand rules that anybody on the planet doing Wayfarer reviews can apply, and can apply consistently.

    An upgraded submission isn't just "local" to my country, but to my neighbouring country. This means that somebody who is NOT as intimately familiar with my local PRP laws will be trying to suss out whether or not my nomination is valid.

    Keeping in mind at the same time, that (while a miniority), a LARGE number of submissions are (to be blunt) submitted by liars. "More is better!" and they will definitely be submitting their mailbox-in-the-shape-of-a-lighthouse or whatever that's in front of any rural house they can.

    Niantic's rules HAVE to be:

    • short/concise
    • applied worldwide
    • little/no room for interpretation
  • TWVer-INGTWVer-ING Posts: 556 ✭✭✭✭✭

    If Niantic has to account for everything worldwide, and apply that worldwide, they better shut down the company, because there wouldn't be anything left that isn't illegal somewhere.

    In the end of the day, the guideline says anything on prp is ineligible, anything outside of prp is okay when it comes to prp. The fairytale that we should consider prp to go up until the street, is made up by wayfarers, and has never been stated by Niantic. And the fact that sometimes, prp extends all the way to the street, is used as an excuse to justify that fairytale.

  • 0X00FF00-ING0X00FF00-ING Posts: 763 ✭✭✭✭✭

    They DO have to account for, worldwide, NOT being an "attractive nuisance" when wayspots are created that are causing disruptions at PRP. More lawsuits = fewer wayspots

    And these long conversations never help, they (including this one) keep having nonfactual information that is specific at best to ONE person's location. ie. "facade to sidewalk = PRP". Which is, of course, nonsense*.


    *nonsense, in that writing such a rule that way is NOT a valid definition worldwide. And specifically not here where I am.

  • Jtronmoore-PGOJtronmoore-PGO Posts: 1,581 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Niantic said to not look into local nuances in laws. If its infront of the prp yard. It is ineligible. If its on the other side of the fence still ineligible. Nothing has changed

  • Theisman-INGTheisman-ING Posts: 1,001 ✭✭✭✭✭
  • Jtronmoore-PGOJtronmoore-PGO Posts: 1,581 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I’m not making anything up... just waiting for the screen shot of what niantic said about things on private property or in areas associated with private residential property to be approved by mods

    It was in an earlier discussion about easements.

    says “ reviewers should avoid trying to determine wether those locations are public or private based on local laws. If its an area not associated with any private residential property, that should be ok.

    As a final note it is hard for us to know the local nuances of legal access for a global product, so as a general rule, if the location is on private residential property it shouldn’t be submitted.”

    I’ll break it down for those who don’t want to listen to it.

    • avoid trying to determine if a sidewalk next to a private property is indeed town property or prp based off local laws. If its beside private residential property this is saying to not submit it based off that.
    • if what you are trying to submit isnt by a private residential property GREAT!! It is eligible.
    • key word to take away from it is the word “ASSOCIATED”. Is that small piece of land associated with a private residential property. If your answer is “its next to a private residential property fence” then the answer is yes and it should be avoided when submitted. If your answer is NO its not anywhere associated with prp then you will be fine
  • Jtronmoore-PGOJtronmoore-PGO Posts: 1,581 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Alsooo! Under the “help” tab please click and read the “what makes a good wayspot” and just because I’m feeling nice I’ll copy and paste what it says there The last sentence is key!

    • Please give a 1 star if the nomination has the following issues:Nomination where the photo or information appears to focus on aperson/group of people, body parts, live animals, instead of an object
    • The photo appears to be from a third party source (e.g. shows a watermark) or is low quality (e.g., pitch black/blurry photos or photos taken from a car)

    Please be sure to closely review nominations whose real-world location appears to be within 40 meters of private, single-family residential property, and nominations whose real-world location appears to be in a neighborhood park. To be clear, nominations should be rejected if their real-world location appears to be on private, single-family residential property or might encourage people to go onto private property (e.g., because the real-world location is at the end of a private driveway).

  • Jtronmoore-PGOJtronmoore-PGO Posts: 1,581 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I will yet again drop this comment from niantic about easements. Can someone from niantic please just come out and finalize this. @NianticAaron @NianticCasey-ING

  • 0X00FF00-ING0X00FF00-ING Posts: 763 ✭✭✭✭✭

    A totally normal front lawn, sidewalk, and easement. It is common to see places like this throughout my entire country. This is COMMON, not “weird”, both in my country (Canada) and in our neighbours to the south (USA).


    The between-sidewalk-and-road section of land here is entirely owned by the same PRP. It’s not unusual to find things in such areas that I would like to submit, but WILL NOT. Because placing a wayspot there entirely violates the spirit Niantic’s explicitly stated rules that are aimed to avoid irritating property owners.

    I am not allowed to care if it’s art, a LFL, or anything else that would be submissible if placed anywhere else than directly on their property.

    I continue to be aghast that so many players are advocating a ruleset allowing nominations in such places @NianticCasey-ING

  • Lechu1730-PGOLechu1730-PGO Posts: 537 ✭✭✭✭

    No one is telling you to approve PoIs you know are in PRP. In particular in the case of your picture, as there's no clear demarcation on the front of the house I'd default to reject anything on the sidewalk as I don't know where the property ends.

    What I'm saying is that you can't generalize your local rules because in most places they make no sense. Compare with this:

    There's a clearly demarcated property line, with walls or fences separating the houses from the sidewalk. There's no possible confusion on where the PRP ends and where the public sidewalk starts.

    P.S.: That something is common in Canada and USA doesn't make it less weird to other cultures. There's a whole sociological analysis that can be done on the reasons for such differences but I'm an engineer so I won't go into that.

  • 0X00FF00-ING0X00FF00-ING Posts: 763 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited March 2021

    MY rules don't make sense?

    The house next to the one I photo'd yesterday only has grass in their "easement", as does MOST of the rest of the street. So what you're saying is, you would reject anything directly next to the curb in the pictured house BECAUSE in that one the easement looks like PRP. But you would accept something placed on the easement for its neighbour, because its easement has no visible demarcation.

    Your rules are, to be blunt, subjective and therefore utter nonsense.

    PS. your pictured locations, in the two seconds' worth of inspection available, appear to be likely multi-family locations where PRP rules don't apply

  • TWVer-INGTWVer-ING Posts: 556 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I did some further digging and I found these interesting articles:

    https://www.thestar.com/yourtoronto/the_fixer/2017/06/21/turns-out-there-is-a-standard-to-determine-where-a-homeowners-property-ends-the-fixer.html

    https://realawstate.com/road-allowance/

    TLDR: Property lines in North America (US and Canada) work similar to how they work in Europe. The property line DOES NOT extend all the way to the street. There is a Road Allowance (which is public space not associated with any private property) that is at minimum 66 feet / 20 meters wide.

    In the following link, you can check your (Canadian) property lines:

    https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=3446dc1482ae4bb0b3bf2877e28d4d7c

    A quick check there on random towns/cities, tells that property lines do not extend to the street. Not even to the sidewalk.

    Those area's outside of your property lines are not "your easements". They are public space. And wayspots in those area's are allowed.

  • Lechu1730-PGOLechu1730-PGO Posts: 537 ✭✭✭✭

    Please take a deep breath and read again what I posted. I'll wait for you.

    -----------------

    No, I didn't say your rules make no sense. I say they wouldn't make sense if applied to places like where I live (and vice versa), just like both sets of rules (yours and mine) wouldn't make sense in places where there are no sidewalks at all. Hence my point about the inadvisability of have just one set of rules.

    Also, I think you're misunderstanding my point about your photo: I said that, as the house lacks any clear front demarcation (let's say, a fence) I would probably reject anything in front of the house, up to and including the curb, just to be sure, even if it were located here where I live. I never talked about any neighbours but if I knew that in the area sidewalks are part of the property, I'd obviously reject everything in the sidewalk no matter if there's a fence or not.

    Finally, you're wrong about the pictures. First and second (the one not loaded) pictures have only single family homes. The third one has a duplex, which counts as single family, between two multifamily buildings.

  • 0X00FF00-ING0X00FF00-ING Posts: 763 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Your comments about my photo clearly demonstrate confusion and lack of understanding. In briefest possible summary:

    • nobody should submit or approve anything in front of the pictured house
    • all houses need to have the same rules applied uniformly
    • therefore, somehow or other, you are arguing that SOME houses are allowed to have different PRP rules than the pictured house

    Your logic still eludes me.

    Apparently "an area that's not associated with any private residential property" differs in my (clearly real) picture and in your still-hypothetical world. The easement/right-of-way above is or is not associated with the PRP?

  • Lechu1730-PGOLechu1730-PGO Posts: 537 ✭✭✭✭

    Ok, let's go point by point, shall we?

    • nobody should submit or approve anything in front of the pictured house

    Agreed. You clearly stated that the sidewalk is part of the property.

    • all houses need to have the same rules applied uniformly

    No. Multi family homes have different rules than single family ones, but in any case I agree that the same types of homes should have the same set of rules applied to them.

    • therefore, somehow or other, you are arguing that SOME houses are allowed to have different PRP rules than the pictured house

    What part of "Where I live, the sidewalk is public property" is so hard for you to understand? It's just like you tried to apply PRP rules to a park. It's public space, it's not part of any private property and everyone knows it. WHERE I LIVE. You saying "Sidewalks are part of PRP" based on your experience doesn't make it so here.

    I understand perfectly well your position: you want one set of rules to be applied everywhere and that set of rules to be aligned with your local experience, regardless of what's the actual situation in other places.

    I, on the contrary, am saying that you can't generalize and each location needs to apply the rules (nothing on PRP) based on how the PRP is locally defined. I'm not talking about easements, rights of way or any other loophole that would allow you to enter legally in someone else's property. I'm talking about "This is public property, period".

    You may disagree with my point of view, which is fine. But if you don't understand it then there's nothing else that we can possibly discuss.

  • TWVer-INGTWVer-ING Posts: 556 ✭✭✭✭✭

    That sidewalk is highly unlikely to be part of that property. See my previous post.

  • 0X00FF00-ING0X00FF00-ING Posts: 763 ✭✭✭✭✭

    We (and Niantic) are talking about PRP not MRP, so don't be nitpicky about THAT detail thankyouverymuch.

  • 0X00FF00-ING0X00FF00-ING Posts: 763 ✭✭✭✭✭

    If the rules are NOT one-rule-for-everybody-everywhere then you get LONG IRRITATING CONFUSING THREADS like this one.

    Here, the easement = PRP. How can you not understand that rewriting the rule so that it favours YOU, you're undermining the rules HERE. You're creating a situation where Niantic will again be subject to lawsuits from PRP owners.

    It's sad perhaps that it may mean "slightly fewer Wayspots in residential/suburban" areas, but's it's a lot LESS sad than "lawsuits create a situation with a LOT fewer Wayspots nearby to any PRP".

  • TWVer-INGTWVer-ING Posts: 556 ✭✭✭✭✭

    There is a one-rule-for-everybody-everywhere. It is "anything ON prp is ineligible". This works in situations where the sidewalk is on prp, and where it is not.

    You seem to keep ignoring my post about Canadian property line rules. The sidewalk is not on your easement. It is on the Road Allowance, which is public space, not prp.

  • 0X00FF00-ING0X00FF00-ING Posts: 763 ✭✭✭✭✭

    The easement IS "land directly associated with PRP". Niantic says "no" to that. QED.

    Why are you having so much trouble understanding this point, and why are you continuing to pronounce that players need to vote in such a way that will create even more of those "attractive nuisance" lawsuits?

  • Lechu1730-PGOLechu1730-PGO Posts: 537 ✭✭✭✭

    @TWVer-ING The whole argument boils down to a slippery slop fallacy. At some point you have to let it go.

  • TWVer-INGTWVer-ING Posts: 556 ✭✭✭✭✭

    The Road Allowance is NOT "land directly associated with PRP". It is public space. When Niantic talks about easements, they talk about easements ON prp.

    I just want people to follow the rules, and not make up their own. Why do you keep insisting on your point, when we have presented so much evidence against it?

    True...

  • 0X00FF00-ING0X00FF00-ING Posts: 763 ✭✭✭✭✭

    "Public space" is a different thing from "right-of-way". In public space, you are entitled to linger and loiter. In a mere right-of-way, as is on these "easements", you are allowed to pass through but not remain.

    The easement / right-of-way / boulevard / curb / ditch / road allowance area is a location associated directly with the adjoining PRP. Those are the words Niantic used, when describing where you're not allowed to submit/accept: area associated with PRP is NOT "ok".

    Lawsuits are bad. Crowds of Pokemon players gathering directly in front of PRP caused a nuisance, which led to lawsuits, which led to this very specific rule about placing wayspots that potentially irritate those homeowners. Having even more wayspots allowed directly on this s.trip of land can only lead to more trouble. That's bad, and we've been asked to be mature and responsible about not making our fun AR games a troublesome nuisance.

Sign In or Register to comment.