It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.
Sign In with Ingress Sign In with Pokémon GO
In the last St. Cloud report, they didn't remove this one (the pots):
It's still live, even after all the complaints. Unless it was actually removed and submitted again, they did change what they consider PrP and have been following this new rule for some time already.
Bit of an overstatement, one person is saying it and he's been voted down and had it explained to him. From what I can see on the consensus of the reading is (and its how I see it and have for ages) on sidewalk and up to but not on the property line, acceptable, on the property line and into it, prp.
So say a post box (yes, boo hiss and all that) is on the pavement and is just up to but not touching the property line, that would be fine, but it it was a mural on a wall of prp, that still not acceptable
As you pointed out in that discussion, removal criteria is different from acceptance criteria and interpreting what is removed or not into acceptance criteria doesn’t always work. This appears to be the first somewhat officially announced change in acceptance criteria on this subject.
You bring up a great point though. I have been discussing if murals on the walls of PRP are eligible now as I reviewed one this weekend that backs up to a park. I see @NianticGiffard did remove one that was directly located on a sidewalk on October 4th though, so is it safe to think these wall murals are still unacceptable under the PRP rejection reason because they are on the PRP side of the sidewalk? I would love to hear others thoughts on this as we all try to navigate this new clarification.
I think a mural on the exterior of a wall at the property line is very much within the realm of ‘near a sidewalk, not interfering with a single family residence’.
Yeah, like I've literally seen a fence go round a post box, ad the fence was the end of the property line so they had to build it round the post box.
Although weirdly, I own a pavement, my title deed has me owning the pavement next to my house and even the bit of road at the side of my house for turning, but not the road in front of my house or the pavement in front of my house. Think it's essentially the turning bit is technically my driveway
I'd say it's still on the property line ad that wall would be the property line, so while it doesn't actually interfere, it's still technically on prp
Interesting. By your interpretation any artistic mailbox would be eligible because yes, they are normally located on the easement side of the sidewalk. Being from a coastal town we have numerous manatee or dolphin mailboxes, would these be eligible based on this clarification?
...... I mean, I'm from the UK, we accept post boxes 🤣🤣 oh wait, do you mean the mailboxes that Americans have at the end of their driveway? I'd probably say no to those, cause they are still owned by the house/prp. Post boxes are public property
I mean, in a high-end neighborhood in the US, many - if not most - properties could have their own POIs due to the ornate nature of gardens with fountains, statuary, decorative walls, address signage, etc. Anything away from the house and approaching the sidewalk could meet this criteria.
I don't see that anything new has been said here. This is exactly how the criteria have always read since Wayfarer began (when we were told to ignore all previous guidelines).
I see the law on sidewalks/pavements being brought up here, so just to chime in from my professional experience.
I deal in global road asset management. In Almost all of Europe, Australia, New Zealand AND IN EVERY STATE IN THE US, the road consists of Carriageway, Kerb, Drainage, Footway and Verge (Where applicable - any element may be ommited) . This is a legal definition irrespective of ownership of the land the upon which the road and associated assets are situated.
In the case of any public road, this means the public have a right of access on all those areas IRRESPECTIVE of who owns the land upon which they are situated. Therefore, wherever the idea came from that a US sidewalk may not be publicly accessable is just flat out wrong, in all states.
Nobody said sidewalks weren’t publicly accessible. The community understanding is that the Niantic rejection reason of private residential property - which has to do with not property definitions, but lawsuit settlement - extends over the entirety of a single family residential ground, including the exterior of walls at the property line, including the sidewalk itself.
I may have been misunderstood. If there is a public sidewalk (or any part of a public road) on private land, the landowner has no right to do anything with that property, such as build on it, or order people to move off it, unless they first apply for the sidewalk to be removed.
In practice, in over 30 years in the industry, I have never seen this happen.
It's a faulty interpetation of the US law, thats the point. (and it simply doesn't apply in any other country with public roads that I am aware of)
This was a point people brought up a lot. If you were able to build a little free library on the patch of land, it is either on your private property or you built something on public land that you probably aren’t supposed to.
I don’t keep up with the law but I did see it used as an argument by people.
Technically in the US, mailboxes are federally owned, so that argument does not apply
When Wayfarer began we were. Or told to ignore previous guidelines. In fact Casey stated previous AMAs were still valid.
Eligibility (or rejection) criteria and removal criteria are different, but what is considered PrP, K-12, Emergency services and so on, has always been (AFAIK) the same in both. But of course, they never mentioned it before. I was just pointing out a case where this same understanding had already been (silently) applied.
As for wall murals, the understanding Niantic has been applying is that anything attached to the wall/fence of PrP (even on the outside) is not eligible. They removed lots of graffiti that fit this case recently.
Thankfully, many of those people are being corrected.
No. They are people's mailboxes.
Nope, they are Federal Property (in the US at least)
Federal government didn't pay for mine to be replaced when the post was eaten by termites last year.
I didn't write the law I'm just sharing it.
Does it give strangers the right to open my mailbox? No. They are federally protected. That is even more of an argument not to accept them as waypoints. You don't mess with other people's mailboxes. I've had multiple private mailboxes reported and removed from the game in the last
That goes to anything that you aren't supposed to mess with. Post boxes are very similar and eligible if unique and/or artistic. Same argument can be made about tampering... Yet eligible.
No, in the U.S., Federal privacy laws protect mailboxes where mail is received. That way, legal papers can be delivered by mail. Someone hanging around private mailboxes can be arrested before they even tamper with it, or intimidate the recipient not to sign something.
PokeMonGo affects 80 meters from a wayspot. Ingress affects 40 meters.
I can't legally go build a shed in someone's yard - so Niantic can't build something virtual in someone's yard.
A wayspot at the street in front of a house could result in PokeMon running through their yard, or a resonator placed in their bedroom. Gamers have blocked driveways, trampled gardens, even rung doorbells to request access beyond the front yard.
You and I aren't party to the lawsuit, but we do want to respect people's homes, and we don't want Niantic in legal trouble. I'm shocked that their law department would approve this change.
Here is the pertinent part of the (September 2019) lawsuit:
I don't particularly have any stakes in this issue. My comment history consists of me explaining Niantic's official position on the matter of PRP, not of me saying that Niantic's position is "right".
But I can't say I'm particularly fond of nominations on easements, I can relate local anecdotes where roving bands of pokemon raiders kept clogging local street parking for 20+ minutes at a time. Or where police had been called just because somebody decided to spend evenings sitting quietly in their car spinning stops to refill gear for their PokePlus, and the nosy neighbours were convinced the driver must have been there for drug deals. So yes, the "nuisance" issues described in and now mitigated by the lawsuit are real, y'all.
The one concern in particular I've got is the concept of "guerrilla installations". My region's bylaws explicitly forbid erecting structures of any kind on the easement. You may not build anything outside your own PRP along the easement without explicit permission from the planning department, and actually getting that permission here is essentially unheard of. They're concerned about drivers' sightlines, underground services, and more. You may be legally required to maintain that str.ip of land, cut the grass and so on, or else be faced with fines. But you cannot build structures of any kind, grow hedges, or anything else, or else be faced with other fines.
So while some things may indeed be allowed in the vicinity of the easement, nothing like a LFL or even a birdhouse, can stand on the easement here. Such "guerrilla installations" will be considered illegal, and swiftly removed when reported to the city. And as such they are at best a "temporary structure".
But what you’re sharing isn’t exactly correct. The Federal government has laws concerning personal mailboxes in order to protect their contents, but the Feds only control the space within the box and the mail that goes in and out. They do not own your mailbox.
Alright I'm not a lawyer and I don't understand laws more than the average person... Google searches imply mailboxes are Federal Property. Of course Google can be wrong.
I think it's more for messing with the mail is a federal crime.
Yo, @NianticGiffard and fellow reviewers, I found a nomination were they linked back to this very Forum thread. Is it true that if it's on the sidewalk or in the patch between sidewalk and curb POI are eligible or is this something that's being taken out of context? Help me understand.