It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.
Sign In with Ingress Sign In with Pokémon GO
I’m on the same page with you you. Basically associated with prp is ineligible. Ive tried to explain it but people seem to not care so I’ll let them waste there submissions for obvious prp lol. Its clear the word associated is not clearly understood. For me associated means is that sidewalk beside a prp? Yes =ineligible
I think the lesson of this thread is that when Niantic creates a definition that explicitly depends on local laws (like "Is this an easement?") and then tells reviewers that they shouldn't have to know the nuances of local laws to review, the definition makes no sense.
Niantic literally said to not look into local laws and if it is associated with private residential property to not submit it.
Ignoring your interpretation of that answer, as I don't agree with your take on that, local laws MUST be taken into account.
In the UK we have terraced houses, they are PRP. There is no US equivalent of a Terraced house, the closest are Row houses and Town Houses, but neither are the same.
Now under Niantics definition of PRP, UK terraced houses would not be classed as PRP.
But in UK Law they 100% are.
If we were to ignore local law as you say, we could place POI's on peoples PRP, totally against Niantics Policy.
That would then open them up to anothet round of lawsuits just as the previous PoGo one did.
Are you seriously going to tell me that we should ignore national law and class UK terraced houses as valid locations?
I've been wondering about terraced houses... there has been that thread from Italy, the 2 houses have 2 separate entrances (we can see them on Google maps) and it has been considered valid... I don't know about local law, but I'm not sure Niantic would treat the UK differently... : https://community.wayfarer.nianticlabs.com/discussion/14246/removed-portal-appeal
If I had had the same kind of terraced houses to review in my country, I would have rejected it, but it seems I would have been wrong.
I dont know about Italian law and buildings so I can't comment, but people on that thread asked for reinstatement of the POI as the property wasn't PRP. Are you saying it was ?
I'm not saying anything, I'm just really wondering and unfortunately I don't have the answers yet. 😐️
This is just a side note, but what is even meant by the aforementioned 'local law'? Municipal, district, state, national? At first glance, I'd probably say, municipal, but who knows? In the end, I am quite pleased that the only little free libraries I get to review are in former public phone booths, so that's pretty easy for me. I am reviewing places from up to 8 European countries (but mainly 3) and N-American 'local laws' don't reflect the situation over here. Therefore, it only makes sense to me to use my best judgment and rate submissions in its context.
This is simple: An easement is private property, but unless you've built a house on it it's not private residential property.
I'll try to explain how Niantic intended it, in the context they used it in:
If you install a little free library (LFL) in your front yard, on your property, you expect people to enter your property to interact with it. The local law could say that therefor, the area leading up to and around the LFL, becomes public. However, for the context of Wayfarer, we should still consider this area, that is part of your property, as private property, no matter what the local law says. It doesn't matter if that law is municipal, district, state or national. For the context of Wayfarer, if it is ON someone's private residential property, it is ineligible.
The confusion in this thread is about area's outside of the property. Many North-Americans (Wayfarer or otherwise) seem to wrongfully believe their property extends all the way to the street. However, that is not the case.
No, that's not how it works. An easement is part of a private property. If that property is residential, then the easement is private residential property. No house has to be built on the easement itself for that. Anywhere on the property will do.
I don't think you're allowed to build any structure (house or otherwise) on an easement.
I did not really ask for an explanation, instead, I just wanted to point out that the phrasing in the infamous post about LFL in this thread is intentionally kept vague. However, I would like to point out that there seems to be quite some variation in property lines in N-America. Apparently, it is not that rare that one's private property can even extend to the middle of the road. I guess that's different from city to city or county to county.
In the end, I don't want to apply rules that simply are not working in another context. I am not arguing that something private is public, just that in different places different things are public or private and that has to be taken into account. If something is different in Canada, so be it, that does not make it a global rule.
Regarding "Terraced Houses" and such (see references at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terraced_house)
Even for "apartment" buildings, where it's one structure with multiple dwelling units, only thing in "common/communal areas" are still allowed. Nothing inside a single unit, or its yard/balcony/etc.
As a Terraced house is effectively a series of PRP, that same principle would apply.
Should apply yes, however as defined by Niantic they are not classified as PRP, hence the issue that local laws regarding PRP must be taken into consideration
@NianticCasey-ING apparently "private homes" are not being classified by Niantic as PRP for the sin of sharing an outdoor wall with others. In America places like this are variously known as "semi-detatched" "duplex" "triplex" even "quadplex" or as "townhouses".
Yet all of those are by definition "PRP".
To the upthread commenters, is it "just" a relatively minor confusion with regards to removals/appeals where for example NianticKN or another staff rejects your request? Have you got specific links to those threads with incorrectly applied PRP rules? Even Niantic staff occasionally needs to be re-educated about simple stuff like this (and historically have been very inconsistent on how those rules get applied, rather than the rules themselves being inconsistent).
That's my point. Because you're not "allowed to build any structure (house or otherwise) on an easement" it is ridiculous to call it private residential property. It's not!
Just because it's nearby some private residential property, or has the same owner as some private residential property, that does not make it private residential properly.
An easement is not a property on it's own. It is a part of a property where other people than the owner have certain rights. If that property is private residential, then the easement is also private residential.
Podrías mostrar una foto de ese lugar?
I wish someone would officially clarify this, because I keep seeing these incredibly heated discussions going on, with people calling each other names and getting really irate. It isn't sensible to get so worked up over this, and isn't good to start insulting people who do not agree with you.
I will apply my country's law to this. Someone else can apply their country's law. This seems the only sensible way to do it unless Niantic clarify.
I am not going to reject things that I know are not on private property just because someone on a different continent thinks they are on private property. They don't live here, they don't know our rules, they don't know what is common knowledge here, just as I don't know what their rules are.
Niantic in discussions have said not to apply local laws to determine whats prp or not. Also under the help section they have a blurb on private property as well
So why are people saying to apply their local laws to my reviews then?
Because they don’t want to listen to the answer lol. I posted the screen shot on this thread earlier where nianticcasey spoke on this on earlier discussions prior to criteria update(this wouldnt change with criteria update). They just wont believe it until it comes from niantics own people lol
Here it is again
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).
and the link to this^ under help and “what makes a good waypoint
Again, you are reading things that are not there. Both these quotes state to reject stuff that is ON single family private residential property. PRP ends at the property line. That's how it works worldwide. In most places, the property doesn't go all the way to the street. The sidewalk is not part of the property. The sidewalk is not on your easement. This is also the case in the US and Canada.
The local laws part talks about easements, aka area's ON prp where (parts of) the public has access to.
Please use a map that has property lines, and find me a city/town/village in North-America that has at least 50 prp's, where at least half of those extend to the street/include sidewalks.
None of that post tells me I can't accept a waypoint that's clearly on a pavement or grass verge. So I shall continue to apply common sense and British law when reviewing.
read the last sentence...
The last sentence “might encourage people to go onto private property (e.g., because the real-world location is at the end of a private driveway).” So if a spot can encourage someone to possibly go onto private property it should be rejected
also “ reviewers should avoid trying to determine wether those locations are public or private property based on local laws” yes this about easements. Still says to avoid using local laws to determine if a place is public or not.
that paired with the line above should be enough for anyone to think of if its on or close to private properly and MIGHT encourage people to go on it it should be rejected.
but ill just sit here 🤦🏻🙄
Probably late to this, but in the UK (or at least in my area) the pavement is not part of the prp, like my land deed for my house shows that my area ends at the end of my driveway and garden. Its why post boxes aren't prp, they are on the public property area (even ones that the garden wall goes round)
Walking along a footpath does not encourage anyone to go on private property. Neither does using a public post box, book collection site, viewing a plaque etc located on a pavement or grass verge.
Despite everyone getting so heated about easements, I haven't ever heard that word before these kinds of threads. It's not a common word in the UK for average people to use in daily life. Maybe its a legal term, so maybe you'd find it when buying a house with an odd access agreement? Either way, it's not in my vocabulary, so I shall ignore it and think about gardens, driveways, pavements and roads - I understand those quite well enough to apply the criteria.
You still haven't answered why I need to apply Canadian(?) local law that says the street is somehow private property to my reviews, when I can't apply my own local law? Do you see how that makes no sense? If I hadn't read these threads, I'd be blissfully ignorant that pavements and roads are considered private property anywhere in the world and would never have considered it when reviewing. All you are doing is confusing everyone for whom this is not the case.
There's an old joke from when I was a kid about this guy who was driving on a highway, turns on the radio and hears the host say "If you're on the highway, beware! There's a car driving on the wrong way" and the guy looks at the radio and says "One? Thousands!"
Somehow this discussion reminded me of it...
The logic of “i dont know this word” so ill ignore any guideline related. Is just being ignorant tbh but by all means try to nominate things at end of driveways or on sidewalks infront of prp. Ill just keep rejecting them as per guidelines
You have now called me both dense and ignorant in these topics. Please stop insulting someone for disagreeing with you. It isn't kind.
@NianticCasey-ING @NianticGiffard please can you step in here and stop the name calling