There's literally millions of people who can spin from their couch. Whether thats apartments in big cities with tons of stops or residential suburbs with a park or church in middle of a suburb. Being able to spin from couch isn't a disqualifier....
Not sure I'd assume it's laziness as much as people see Little Free Libraries or that are approved or see Niantic's words and misinterpret... then see another and go... oh those are cool and nominate.
Most bad nominations that are partly acceptable like LFL are because of most people aren't extreme rule followers and see an example in their game of choice, then see something thats ALMOST the same.... and not realize that almost matters.
I do not see why people try to twist the logic or criteria of things that are black and white. If it's in yours or someone else's yard, it can't go. It's very simple!
Perhaps @NianticGiffard might like to clarify what he said or restate the criteria defining the limits of PRP so that this sort of false information stops being propagated. If this wasn't obviously a "PRP" rejection, I'd be inclined to report the nomination for trying to influence reviewers with false info.
This discussion mostly concerned the borders of pvp/public, but there's another thing I don't find quite right with most LFL's:
Even if they are on public space: if they're built by a nearby resident and placed in public space, it should be rejected too. Just as we would reject artwork structures that are just thrown together and put in a grassy field somewhere. They're prone to be removed by the city, as almost no city allows its citizens to just randomly place art, libraries, or anything that anyone likes to display, outside their private sphere.
My motivation would be that it goes against TOS to support illegal actions. It also can be rejected as a 'temporary/seasonal' display, because it could be removed by the city or by the owner on their whims.
The only LFL's I accept are officially licensed ones, most are marked accordingly. The rest is just privately built, placed somewhere at random.
If @NianticGiffard (sorry for the cheesy tag) disagrees with this, then I suspect a surge in little free libraries near residential places in the months ahead. :)
I think you might be being a bit overly rigid in your thinking about LFLs. I have something like 9 LFLs approved in or in front of places like parks, churches, and businesses. Most, but not all happened to be registered, but registration costs money that not all organizations have. The ones I’ve submitted that don’t have official designations are no less legitimate or more temporary than those that do and it would be unfortunate if they weren’t able to be included on those grounds.
Remember the origin of the Single Family Residence / Private Residential Property rejection criteria: In 2019, Niantic settled a U.S. class action lawsuit. The suit was because (when PokeMonGo was new), homeowners near PokeStops had their driveways blocked, gardens trampled, privacy invaded, people running thru their yards chasing PokeMon, and more. Niantic settled by promising to quickly remove existing stops on PRP, and not to add any new ones in the future. They are legally obligated to the agreement.
Legally, You cant' build something in someone else's property, even a virtual thing. A PokeMon should not be able to run thru someone's yard. An agent shouldn't be able to deploy a resonator inside someone's home. Niantic settled the lawsuit because they knew they had broken this standard (and losing would be worse than settling).
We "citizen reviewers" are mentioned in the settlement, but are not party to it. IOW: we cannot be sued for Waypoints too close to single family residences, but Niantic can. So, if they want to muddy the waters on what's required, they are taking their own chances.
Actually the rejection criteria existed much further back than that. It has been around since at least 2015. In fact, here is the earliest version I could find and it's archive date is October 2015. The fact that the rule already existed may have contributed to the plaintiffs settling out of court instead of going to trial (as they would very likely walked away with nothing). What Niantic gave up as part of the settlement was very minimal. The most Niantic gave was creating a process that allowed property owners to request removal of "stops" from their property and that home owners could request the removal of "stops" that were within 40 meters of their property. The rest was simply reinforcing an existing rule.
So I understand this response is valid for the topic only in the US, as I am not up on zoning in other countries. In the States the local government actually owns a set distance from the center of the road. Depending on zoning it is anywhere from 15 to 30 feet, Generally allowing for a sidewalk and 5 feet beyond that. (Anyone using the metric system can convert.) So as long as the object falls in the zone it is on federal/public property and therefor a valid submission. These zoning laws were put in place to allow for road expansion and sidewalk building if necessary. While that is good for the growth of a particular community it just happens to benefit portal submissions as well.
Unless I can physically see the property line, I'm going to presume that it either stops at the sidewalk or at the edge of the road. I'm not going to make assumptions that may result in a lawsuit. Especially when Niantic has instructed reviewers to verify that an object is not on private residential property. I therefore won't presume that something isn't on private residential property based on distance from the road alone.
I regularly go to different LFLs and take and leave books, for both me and my daughter. And I don't think everyone would want random groups of people gathering out the front of their house at all hours, it would be creepy and uncomfortable!
You'd be surprised. In a couple of the Pokémon Go subreddits "just put up a LFL in front of your house" is quite common (and poor) advice for those that post saying they want a couch stop. The OPs of those posts always seem to like that idea.
It's when reviewers look at every stop near a home as someone trying to get a couch stop or with suspicion and bias'ing their decision from the start is what stops a lot of genuine Submissions going through.
Even if someone did erect a LFL on the edge of their property to get such a stop...it would be valid + the community has gained a small library. Everyone wins.
Its the ones who go out if way to find reasons to deny everyone everything that are as much the real problem as real submission abusers.
If you downvote, you know im probably talking about you ;)
Q48: Little Free Libraries... when reviewing potential portals in OPR, should LFL be approved if they are next to the road or sidewalk within the county/city right-of-way, but the lawn they are on is owned and maintained by a residential home privately owned? These seem to be on county/city property and private property at the same time. It seems the LFL is inviting the public to stop by. What do you say?
A48: According to NIA OPS, If it's on someone's private residential property (right-of-way or not), it does not meet criteria. If it's on a common area that's not associated to any private residence, that should be ok. It's hard for us to know the local nuances of legal access for a global game, so as a general rule, if it's on the 'Do Not Submit' list, do not submit them.
Totally unrelated. @Drijien-ING is talking about where the property line is. The AMA is talking about objects on a property that have some public access (right-of-way).
The ones that are on the outside lawn should be eligible in my opinion since that part of the grass is technically city property at least in the United States. There should be some clarification I understand rejecting the ones that are placed on the big section of a lawn but if the box is placed on the outside lawn passed the sidewalk it should be eligible besides the residents put these things up to attract people anyways.
Went through on appeal! 6 out 6 accepted so far and this was the only out of all my appeals (done and still to go) that I was worried might not make it for the reasons you gave.
Honestly, this whole rejecting LFL's for being on private property is bogus. The whole purpose of the damn things is to invite people to make use of them and thus set foot on the owner's property. You think all those LFL's are for private use only? Of course not! Otherwise they'd keep the books inside their house.
Of course statues and other objects in people's yards should remain ineligible, but the mere existence of an LFL is in my eyes an indirect invitation to set foot on their property, thus making it acceptable.
Someone made an insightful comment on one of the many LFL posts that I'll paraphrase here. (Unfortunately, there's too many of these threads for me to find and credit the original poster at the moment.)
Putting an LFL on your property is giving people permission to come there to use the LFL for leaving and taking books. It is not blanket permission for anyone to do what they want there, such as standing around in front of your house, possibly in groups, playing smartphone games.
But there isn't a single Niantic game that requires you to get that close to the object in question. An LFL in someone's front yard can easily be reached from the sidewalk in both Pokemon Go and Ingress. And last I checked, standing on the sidewalk in front of someone's house isn't illegal.
Comments
Perhaps starting reporting them for misinformation?
Lazy people misinterpreting (whether intentionally or not) to try to talk their way into getting a Pokestop they can spin from their couch.
There's literally millions of people who can spin from their couch. Whether thats apartments in big cities with tons of stops or residential suburbs with a park or church in middle of a suburb. Being able to spin from couch isn't a disqualifier....
Not sure I'd assume it's laziness as much as people see Little Free Libraries or that are approved or see Niantic's words and misinterpret... then see another and go... oh those are cool and nominate.
Most bad nominations that are partly acceptable like LFL are because of most people aren't extreme rule followers and see an example in their game of choice, then see something thats ALMOST the same.... and not realize that almost matters.
I do not see why people try to twist the logic or criteria of things that are black and white. If it's in yours or someone else's yard, it can't go. It's very simple!
Perhaps @NianticGiffard might like to clarify what he said or restate the criteria defining the limits of PRP so that this sort of false information stops being propagated. If this wasn't obviously a "PRP" rejection, I'd be inclined to report the nomination for trying to influence reviewers with false info.
This discussion mostly concerned the borders of pvp/public, but there's another thing I don't find quite right with most LFL's:
Even if they are on public space: if they're built by a nearby resident and placed in public space, it should be rejected too. Just as we would reject artwork structures that are just thrown together and put in a grassy field somewhere. They're prone to be removed by the city, as almost no city allows its citizens to just randomly place art, libraries, or anything that anyone likes to display, outside their private sphere.
My motivation would be that it goes against TOS to support illegal actions. It also can be rejected as a 'temporary/seasonal' display, because it could be removed by the city or by the owner on their whims.
The only LFL's I accept are officially licensed ones, most are marked accordingly. The rest is just privately built, placed somewhere at random.
If @NianticGiffard (sorry for the cheesy tag) disagrees with this, then I suspect a surge in little free libraries near residential places in the months ahead. :)
I think you might be being a bit overly rigid in your thinking about LFLs. I have something like 9 LFLs approved in or in front of places like parks, churches, and businesses. Most, but not all happened to be registered, but registration costs money that not all organizations have. The ones I’ve submitted that don’t have official designations are no less legitimate or more temporary than those that do and it would be unfortunate if they weren’t able to be included on those grounds.
It's not always straightforward.
This postbox is a royal mail postbox, used by the public from the pavement but technically on private property as it is within their boundary.
It is a POI so was accepted after the obligatory four attempts this area needs for most submissions (even guaranteed 5*s )
If the mailbox is built into the wall of private residential property, then it will be removed when someone eventually reports it as invalid.
Remember the origin of the Single Family Residence / Private Residential Property rejection criteria: In 2019, Niantic settled a U.S. class action lawsuit. The suit was because (when PokeMonGo was new), homeowners near PokeStops had their driveways blocked, gardens trampled, privacy invaded, people running thru their yards chasing PokeMon, and more. Niantic settled by promising to quickly remove existing stops on PRP, and not to add any new ones in the future. They are legally obligated to the agreement.
Legally, You cant' build something in someone else's property, even a virtual thing. A PokeMon should not be able to run thru someone's yard. An agent shouldn't be able to deploy a resonator inside someone's home. Niantic settled the lawsuit because they knew they had broken this standard (and losing would be worse than settling).
We "citizen reviewers" are mentioned in the settlement, but are not party to it. IOW: we cannot be sued for Waypoints too close to single family residences, but Niantic can. So, if they want to muddy the waters on what's required, they are taking their own chances.
Actually the rejection criteria existed much further back than that. It has been around since at least 2015. In fact, here is the earliest version I could find and it's archive date is October 2015. The fact that the rule already existed may have contributed to the plaintiffs settling out of court instead of going to trial (as they would very likely walked away with nothing). What Niantic gave up as part of the settlement was very minimal. The most Niantic gave was creating a process that allowed property owners to request removal of "stops" from their property and that home owners could request the removal of "stops" that were within 40 meters of their property. The rest was simply reinforcing an existing rule.
So I understand this response is valid for the topic only in the US, as I am not up on zoning in other countries. In the States the local government actually owns a set distance from the center of the road. Depending on zoning it is anywhere from 15 to 30 feet, Generally allowing for a sidewalk and 5 feet beyond that. (Anyone using the metric system can convert.) So as long as the object falls in the zone it is on federal/public property and therefor a valid submission. These zoning laws were put in place to allow for road expansion and sidewalk building if necessary. While that is good for the growth of a particular community it just happens to benefit portal submissions as well.
Niantic has clarified that objects in that part of a property (if it is a single family home) still do not qualify and are considered PRP in the US.
What part of a property are you talking about? You are quoting a comment that talks about areas that are not part of a property.
@Drijien-ING is of course 100% correct, and it is no surprise they get downvoted for it.
Unless I can physically see the property line, I'm going to presume that it either stops at the sidewalk or at the edge of the road. I'm not going to make assumptions that may result in a lawsuit. Especially when Niantic has instructed reviewers to verify that an object is not on private residential property. I therefore won't presume that something isn't on private residential property based on distance from the road alone.
My conspiracy theory is that all LFLs are just excuses to create poke'stops. You think anybody actually leaves or takes those books?
I regularly go to different LFLs and take and leave books, for both me and my daughter. And I don't think everyone would want random groups of people gathering out the front of their house at all hours, it would be creepy and uncomfortable!
You'd be surprised. In a couple of the Pokémon Go subreddits "just put up a LFL in front of your house" is quite common (and poor) advice for those that post saying they want a couch stop. The OPs of those posts always seem to like that idea.
It's when reviewers look at every stop near a home as someone trying to get a couch stop or with suspicion and bias'ing their decision from the start is what stops a lot of genuine Submissions going through.
Even if someone did erect a LFL on the edge of their property to get such a stop...it would be valid + the community has gained a small library. Everyone wins.
Its the ones who go out if way to find reasons to deny everyone everything that are as much the real problem as real submission abusers.
If you downvote, you know im probably talking about you ;)
It is not valid. Niantic has clarified that what you describe would be ineligible under the PRP rules.
Niantic cares not for local laws.
February 2018
Q48: Little Free Libraries... when reviewing potential portals in OPR, should LFL be approved if they are next to the road or sidewalk within the county/city right-of-way, but the lawn they are on is owned and maintained by a residential home privately owned? These seem to be on county/city property and private property at the same time. It seems the LFL is inviting the public to stop by. What do you say?
A48: According to NIA OPS, If it's on someone's private residential property (right-of-way or not), it does not meet criteria. If it's on a common area that's not associated to any private residence, that should be ok. It's hard for us to know the local nuances of legal access for a global game, so as a general rule, if it's on the 'Do Not Submit' list, do not submit them.
https://community.wayfarer.nianticlabs.com/discussion/comment/13559/#Comment_13559
Totally unrelated. @Drijien-ING is talking about where the property line is. The AMA is talking about objects on a property that have some public access (right-of-way).
The ones that are on the outside lawn should be eligible in my opinion since that part of the grass is technically city property at least in the United States. There should be some clarification I understand rejecting the ones that are placed on the big section of a lawn but if the box is placed on the outside lawn passed the sidewalk it should be eligible besides the residents put these things up to attract people anyways.
Your opinion does not matter, Niantic has stated they are not eligible.
Yeah I know that, it’s why we keep getting hat pikachus instead of fixing broken features.
I qgree with most of whay you said, but j disagree with your second paragraph, as that would most likely get removed by a council
Went through on appeal! 6 out 6 accepted so far and this was the only out of all my appeals (done and still to go) that I was worried might not make it for the reasons you gave.
Honestly, this whole rejecting LFL's for being on private property is bogus. The whole purpose of the damn things is to invite people to make use of them and thus set foot on the owner's property. You think all those LFL's are for private use only? Of course not! Otherwise they'd keep the books inside their house.
Of course statues and other objects in people's yards should remain ineligible, but the mere existence of an LFL is in my eyes an indirect invitation to set foot on their property, thus making it acceptable.
Someone made an insightful comment on one of the many LFL posts that I'll paraphrase here. (Unfortunately, there's too many of these threads for me to find and credit the original poster at the moment.)
Putting an LFL on your property is giving people permission to come there to use the LFL for leaving and taking books. It is not blanket permission for anyone to do what they want there, such as standing around in front of your house, possibly in groups, playing smartphone games.
But there isn't a single Niantic game that requires you to get that close to the object in question. An LFL in someone's front yard can easily be reached from the sidewalk in both Pokemon Go and Ingress. And last I checked, standing on the sidewalk in front of someone's house isn't illegal.