It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.
Sign In with Ingress Sign In with Pokémon GO
According to Niantic's own statement, that is correct.
Yes it is eligible.
Easy 1* prp.
It's in front of a driveway, so it very much interferes with private property.
If a bunch of kids can gather in that area to play hopscotch why wouldn’t a bunch of kids be able to gather in that area to play Pokémon go?Or any other Niantic game What is the difference?
Kids don't turn up in cars on a regular basis to spin a stop or raid a Gym.
As for the nomination - Temporary.
@NianticGiffard did make that statement however I would definitely investigate the permanence of that “mural” before passing. The streetview is fairly recent and it is not there.
Can the whole part about Giffard's statement be moved to like another thread or something? Even though it was on this thread (which was about survey marks on PRP in which Niantic did not believe warranted action), it has now been derailed by all the examples of things in front of private residential property and the situational stuff now.
Also to anyone thinks grass means it doesn't have pedestrian access, oh boy, they must be allergic to such.
It isn't the kids that largely play Pokémon, but adults. And a bunch of adults shouldn't be standing it front of someone's driveway. After all, @NianticGiffard did say it nomination cannot interfere with private residential property, and that would include not blocking the driveway.
In the streetview you can clearly see that the sidewalk is at the end of where they park their cars. I would not approve that.
A building is also temporary, so are graffitis, businesses, art projects, etc. By this logic, 99% of submissions are to be rejected for this exact same reason.
While different countries might have different rules, here where i live, sidewalks are public access, and we have garages with sidewalks infront of them and the peons have the right of way.
It's no different than if was the driveway at a fire station. Interference for one is also interference for the other.
And yet Niantic denied my invalid POI report for a LFL attached to the column adjacent to the apparatus bay doors on a fire station...and I simply don't have the patience to appeal for something they can clearly see should've been removed after a two second look-see in Streetview.
To me that's next to a driveway, not in front of a driveway. People have their cars parked there, but i don't think they should as there's an obvious curb and not a driveway.
A house is not a fire station. It's not indifference, it's an actual difference.
Let's make it clear for everybody so my comment does not get misinterpreted in any way.
Please don't confuse yourselves with my previous statement i.e. "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."
This is straight and clear and I haven't mentioned anywhere that the eligible object can be on private property. It is only acceptable if the object is not interfering with a single-family residence and should be away from it and not even on the edge.
This clarification should be kept in mind - Any object on the property of private residential property is ineligible. As long as it is on the property of private residential property even if accessible from a sidewalk nearby, it should be rejected.
I hope this clarifies.
Could you just clarify the bold phrase "not interfering" here please? Maybe it's US English, but I don't fully understand. The dictionary definition which seems closest is:
prevent (a process or activity) from continuing or being carried out properly.
So the original statement and clarification above says the object would not be acceptable as a POI if the object *itself* was preventing the normal activities of a private house from taking place. Not a potential POI, but the object itself. Which doesn't seem to make much sense to be honest. I'm really struggling to think of an example of a potential POI which is on land adjacent to a private property, but not on it, and yet is "interfering" with the property itself. I can only think of maybe a little free library that someone has placed blocking access to their own driveway/gate!
Do you actually mean the potential POI would interfere with the property, rather than the object itself?
This really helps with items on the homeowners side of the sidewalk @NianticGiffard, but we really want to know if the "mows the grass" rule for private residential property all the way to the street still applies. For example, if the town has placed an historical marker in the **** between the sidewalk and the grass in front of a single family private residence, is that eligible? I have been rejecting these as interfering with the homeowners' property.
There is no "mows the grass" rule. Private property ends at the sidewalk.
Thank you so much for finally clarifying this, people have been misusing your words to suggest that things on prp are ok if they’re “near the sidewalk” even in cases where there wasn’t even a sidewalk. It’s frankly baffling, just look at this example that tried to use your clarification to get something through:
Every LFL is about to have “does not interfere” in the description hahah.
In all seriousness I do think this new statement is more clarifying that anything on prp is still ineligible, thank you!
Private property ends at the street.
You can't trespasses someone off a sidewalk
Depends on the municipality
Well it doesn't really matter niantic says it's ok
Actually they didn’t, Giffard just clearly stated that if it’s on prp it doesn’t matter where on prp it is
My house doesn’t have a sidewalk. We own all the way to the street. If we, or even a group of my neighbors, decided to put in a “sidewalk” path would we no longer own the property?