POIs on SFPRP
k6nch6n-PGO
Posts: 17 ✭✭
It has come to my attention that Niantic has been approving LFLs on SFPRP upon appeals. Upon further research, I learned that, per "the" US lawsuit, Niantic had been obligated to disallow Wayspots on SFPRP for *3 years* from the settlement date, which had recently been expired. Here is my question. How are we, Wayfarers, supposed to review POIs on SFPRP now? I think it's weird that Niantic uses different guidelines from ours. Without any clarifications, my take is that I still reject POIs on SFPRP, and let the nominator appeal, but I think that's wasting everyone's time.
Comments
I would need to see the photos involved before I could comment.
I don't think that Niantic uses different rules regarding PRP, in your case they might have thought that it is not PRP, so you can check that by requesting its removal.
Until Niantic say otherwise, review like it has not changed.
Rejection Criteria:
"Location is a private residential property (even if historical), farmland"
https://wayfarer.nianticlabs.com/new/criteria/rejection
Report them and if the removal request gets denied, post an appeal of it with evidence here in the invalid wayspot report section.
What is a "SFPRP"?
Single family private residential property
Super Furry Pandas Reaching Puberty
Or
single family PRP.
Lets face it, the way the appeals are going Niantic could have aproved a POI on either of them
The rule existed long before Pokemon Go was a concept. All the lawsuit did was reinforce why the rule exists in the first place. So Niantic will not be changing it just because it is X amount of years after the settlement.
I don't feel like Niantic is in the mood " My condemn for the lawsuit ended, I can't wait for the next lawsuit"
What makes you think so?
That's what I do, until I'm told otherwise, as I said so in my original post. :) I just thought it's wasting everyone's time.
But they still accept them upon appeals? To me, they are using different set of rules...
They are just some of these LFLs which are technically on SFPRP, were rejected by us, and were accepted by Niantic after appeals.
That's how I think, and why they don't want to let us approve them while they do. Makes perfect sense.
The fact that I don't remember any appeal about a PRP where they have allowed the wayspot to remain after confirming that it is indeed single family.
@k6nch6n-PGO can you provide any specific examples?
Relatively recently, Niantic staff publicly stated in these forums that items on the “easement” (aka boulevard) ARE NOT on sfprp, as that bit of land is owned by the city/municipality.
I do note that even since that clarification, I’ve had nominations incorrectly rejected with the PRP reasoning. So I am very certain that players and reviewers are confused about how Niantic intends the rule to be applied.
@NianticTintino this IS one of the most important rules clarifications that needs to be added to the wayfarer site itself, and not hide in the forums.
This why I thought seeing photos would help as what is often described as the area between house and road does seem to vary in status.
Can you provide a link to that clarification (or screenshot)? It would be helpful to have.
This, for example.
Yup, that one does violate Niantic's explicit directives against SFPRP -- unless that building is actually multi-family (which does not appear to be the case from this angle).
Quote from @NianticGiffard himself, "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 answering with regards specifically to a survey marker embedded into the sidewalk directly in front of PRP.
https://community.wayfarer.nianticlabs.com/discussion/20835/survey-markers-being-massively-approved-on-prp/p1
Thanks. I got the direct link if anyone wants it so they don't have to wade through all the comments. https://community.wayfarer.nianticlabs.com/discussion/comment/131736#Comment_131736
That’s clearly PRP.
As with many things I would say given the context of the discussion ( and I think there was another bout LFL). It says the side walk / pavement which was ok and to me that is a public space for people. And the part about next to was the situation where there is an additional str1p of grass between the pavement and the road.
I understand in some areas this grass is considered part of the property.
I don’t think from the context that it was meant to be something in someone’s garden….which this example clearly is a planted and maintained rockery.
But @NianticGiffard also said in the very same topic if it is on private residential property, it is ineligible regardless of whether it is accessible from a sidewalk.
Key quote, "Any object on the property of private residential property is ineligible."
You mean submitters might just pick and choose specific comments to link to, taking them out of context?
Surely nobody would do this in their supporting information? 😮
It and several other posts that Niantic has since walked back (ex Dog Waste Stations) is why I stop taking random comments from Niantic employees in forum posts anymore. If Niantic wants something to be interpreted in a specific way, they should include it in the "source of truth" which is the criteria pages themselves. Anything else doesn't matter. As such, under the criteria, trail markers aren't inherently eligible because they are not mentioned in the "source of truth" and the reasoning Niantic used to claim they are eligible is circular and doesn't conform to the criteria itself.
I said the same in another thread.
There is a reason they are called clarifications. They are meant to clarify the source of truth, for people who don't understand them. The only time I have found them contradicting is when they talk about the eligibility of swimming pools in apartment complexes. Your comment just sounds like an excuse to make up your own rules and not follow Niantics. Hopefully Niantic one day comes with a solution to abuse like this.
And on the main topic, the LFL is clearly outside the fence of the SFPRP. I can see why it was accepted.