Survey Markers Being Massively Approved on PRP
Roli112-PGO
Posts: 2,159 Ambassador
Lately there has been a lot of controversy over a mass number of survey markers being approved in Australia. Many people, including myself think most of these don't fit the spirit of the guidelines since they don't fall into any criteria of their own. Some might actually promote exploration based on their placement, but most are not intended for that and are just placed throughout neighborhoods to help in developments. Most of these being accepted are not even eligible because of Single Home Private Residential Property Rules, yet are being accepted in masses. Since the Niantic team has yet to comment on eligibility of these markers, the least they can do is remove completely invalid ones. So I compiled a list of markers that are on PRP for removal @NianticGiffard
Comments
I looked at the first 4 and none of those look to be on PRP.
I looked at the first four as well and the first three appear to be pinned in the street, and the fourth is marginally pinned at the edge of a sidewalk in front of prp.
Number 5.
Both streetview and satellite **** " holy **** this is prp"
That looks like a place to explore, exercise and socialise that is also not in any way an infringement on private property or a pedestrian hazard.
That is like 1% of all survey markers accepted. Niantic allowed them to be accepted at one point. There’s evidence of that
No, reviewers are the ones who accepted that.
Thanks for reporting and sorry for the delay, @Roli112-PGO. We gave a look at the Wayspots in question and decided they do not meet our criteria for removal or to make any changes.
Thanks, @NianticGiffard can you verify then if sidewalks in front of single home residences are eligible during the review process?
@NianticGiffard are little free libraries in these same areas allowed?
Hi @Roli112-PGO! If an eligible object is on the sidewalk or near a sidewalk that is not interfering with a single-family residence then it is acceptable.
nice
@NianticGiffard Should we disregard this then? In many places in the United States, the area of land that sidewalks sit on is considered part of someone’s private property. Have you consulted with the lawyers on this?
so that means I can theoretically submit all of these and they should be fine.
that just seems so messed up to me. That’s just breaking the data base…
Comparing the two statements, Casey clarified that objects that are ON the PRP are not eligible/acceptable.
Giffard clarified that eligible objects that are next to or nearby, but not on the PRP, are acceptable.
So that means everyone can put any LFLs on the sidewalk in front of their house, and nominate them.
But, @NianticDanbocat said that reviewers don't have to approve those, as LFLs are eligible but it doesn't mean it should become a Wayspot each time it is submitted.
Understandable, have a nice day.
Niantic's logic is amazing.
That is a HUGE departure from the older guideline that PRP extends to the street due to not being able for us to know every local law.
@NianticGiffard in the past we have been told that if it is in front of a PRP to reject them. Mostly because of a lawsuit against Niantic during the first year PoGo was out. Your statement above to many is opening that door back up.
There are already people on Reddit claiming that this statement now allows Wayspots on PRP.
Do you realize what you just said @NianticGiffard ? I woke up this morning and this is posted on every resource I follow that you no longer have to respect the homeowner property line all the way to the street. This needs to be retracted clearly, publicly, and immediately.
You need to have a cup of coffee and come back to this one. If they are on prp they should be removed. If they aren't on prp, but are in the street in front of prp should they also be removed?
This idea of where the line of PRP stops is localised.
As someone living in the U.K. the idea that your property for which you are responsible extends across a pavement to the road is bizarre. I understand the principle of easements etc but it just shows that something that is entirely sensible where I am (an object on grass beyond property wall ) is contentious elsewhere in the world.
We need to have guidelines that allow for context
I think that that is an USA-only thing. In almost everywhere else, PRP ends where your property ends. (that's shocking!)
What I am getting from this @NianticGiffard is if you have a LFL for example. You then have a USA house, with the house, sidewalk, and surrounding patches of mulch/grass. Along with a fence on the side of the property and a another not attached piece of grass… the only place the LFL would be eligible with be on that non-attached piece of grass outside the fence? Or a piece of grass closest to the road?
@grendelwulf-ING I think that would be able to be accepted unless it was smack up against the sidewalk that is near the house?
Cause then again, you would only kick someone off your property if they were hanging around your sidewalk and being obnoxious in the US, however if they stood by the road to the side of the houses or not in front you might be ok.
Replying to your last line: Yeah, that's never gonna happen. Adding guidelines for context would mean assuming liability, something Niantic doesn't want to.
This is why most guidelines are highly generic and vague: You can't be sued for clear intent if what you state is open to interpretation.
Honestly, by looking at these boards, i can see some people that WF more seriously than Niantic ever did. Sit down and consider this: THEY make the money for YOUR FREE LABOR. You need to heavily reconsider your priorities if your work is not only FREE, but is also stressing you.
Meant to say Take rather than That on the last phrase, but thanks to the amazing coding and moderation on these boards, it's quicker to correct yourself in a new post than to edit your old one.
"If an eligible object is on the sidewalk or near a sidewalk that is not interfering with a single-family residence then it is acceptable."
When you say single-family residence are you just referring to the residence building? or also the property it is on?
The house could be far way from the sidewalk and the little library could be beside the sidewalk but planted/placed on the private property beside the sidewalk. So it's not interfering with the single-family dwelling on the private property. Or if single-family residence means the house and property it could interfere.
What if it's on the fence or driveway of the private property? (as I've seen submitted in the past)
Thanks for reading.
!!!!!!!!!
I’ve rejected hundreds of LFLs that were in front of PRP, by the sidewalk. I had a trail marker on the *opposite* side of a sidewalk, away from the house rejected as PRP. I had a poem embedded in the cement of the sidewalk rejected as PRP. We’ve had dozens of arguments *in these forums* about what constitutes PRP, and the consensus from established commenters and reviewers has consistently been that anywhere on private single-family property, from the middle of the house to the furthest edge of the garden, comprises the same piece of PRP.
This comment is a major shift in the definition, away from established player understanding. This is going to require major clarification; please expound at your earliest opportunity, because apparently I owe a lot of nominators a lot of apologies.
I don’t think you owe anyone an apology. You were reviewing based on current clarifications from Niantic, those clarifications have now changed.