Correct. Anything inside the fence, the fence itself and anything on or attached to the fence is considered PRP. Anything outside and not attached to the fence is not considered PRP.
I would agree with you IF the fence is marking the boundary.
Its a bit hard to tell as my impression is that the fence is more for privacy than boundary marking.
When I look at the house next to it, I can see no evidence of an equivalent fence. Just a garden down to the same line next to the pavement. This line is also clearly marks the end of the drive
To me the conclusion is that this is on PRP.
I don’t know where this is but a quick look on street view should clarify what the property edge is here on this street.
So would you reject all fire hydrants, because that is also a "clarification"? But the circular reasoning for trail marker thing is just one example where the clarification does not follow what is in the criteria. An object should already be something that is already a great place to explore or exercise, not become one because it is a Wayspot. Or do you not understand that circular reasoning is a fallacious argument?
So even after Niantic CLEARLY clarified the trail markers recently, you saying you are ignoring that guidance?
That my friend is the definition of a problem voter who voted how they want instead of how Niantic say they should.
Just using common sense and logic its crazy an LFL someone puts on the edge of their property, with the expectation of people using it while standing on a public street, is considered a bad POI.
Do you even know what a trail marker is? Thousands if not millions of people use them to go out to explore and exercise, without any Niantic apps. They are specifically placed there for people to explore and exercise. They don't suddenly become that because they are wayspots. What do you think their purpose is outside of Niantic apps?
Is it possible that because its on the pavement side of a fence, the nianti reviewer has taken the fence to be the property line and the bushes it's in as the public land? That's my first thought looking at it as thay would he a regular thing in my area
And it's common sense too if someone put something ON their private property with the expectation of people using it on a purpose (taking/giving a book) doesn't mean they agree the place being a meeting point of groups of people doing something not related to the purpose.
@Gazzas89-PGO certainly from a U.K. perspective this might be viewed differently.
I can also see an argument as to why this might have been reviewed as acceptable. However as this is one done be Niantic I would expect a more through look.
The LFL is well within the property lines, and I don't think Niantic reviewers assumed the wall is on the property lines. Sorry fot the repeated posts with the same photo. The site has been acting weirdly. I hope posting this text-only comment fixes the issue.
I totally expect that the Niantic reviewer assumed that the fenced marked the end of the PRP, so if you want to verify if wayspots inside PRP are allowed or not, send a removal request and if they deny it appeal it in the forums proving that it's PRP. Otherwise, it's just talk without any end in sight.
I am sure that this discussion is totally different from city to city, one country to another.
I live in Ohio, in the US, in a suburban area. We have sidewalks in front of our houses. Some people have Little Free Libraries in their yards, which to me means that they welcome people stopping by to take or leave a book, but I don't assume that they have waived any other rights.
If I set up a lemonade stand on the sidewalk in front of their house, I would expect them to complain. If I stood there and started to pass out political flyers, I would expect them to ask me to leave. It's fine to walk by, but it is not fine to stop and linger for any purpose unknown to the property owner.
We can quibble about whether these locations should be rejected due to PRP or whether they simply do not meet eligibility criteria, but regardless I would not approve a Wayspot in any of these locations.
I don't buy the result from one random removal request. I was just wondering why Niantic has been flipping our decisions after we'd rejected them according to our understanding of their guidelines, and thought this forum has the answer.
Have you seen a LFL on SFPRP which still got rejected upon appeal? Of course, appeals are for rejected nominations and people post more when the decision is flipped (so it's natural that we see only ones which got approved), but I have not seen a post from people who got them rejected.
Well, nobody from Niantic is seeing this thread apparently. All I wanted to see is "no, LFLs on SFPRP are still rejected on appeals and here is an example", or "yeah, I have been seeing the same patterns in our community and wonder why Niantic accepted them upon appeals", or some sort of clarifications on why what I'm seeing is happening from Niantic. A quick search tells us it's within a property line (of a SFPRP). I'm closing this thread. Thank you.
Comments
So do you mean things on the other side of a fence are not considered on SFP"R"P?
Correct. Anything inside the fence, the fence itself and anything on or attached to the fence is considered PRP. Anything outside and not attached to the fence is not considered PRP.
I would agree with you IF the fence is marking the boundary.
Its a bit hard to tell as my impression is that the fence is more for privacy than boundary marking.
When I look at the house next to it, I can see no evidence of an equivalent fence. Just a garden down to the same line next to the pavement. This line is also clearly marks the end of the drive
To me the conclusion is that this is on PRP.
I don’t know where this is but a quick look on street view should clarify what the property edge is here on this street.
I agree.
So would you reject all fire hydrants, because that is also a "clarification"? But the circular reasoning for trail marker thing is just one example where the clarification does not follow what is in the criteria. An object should already be something that is already a great place to explore or exercise, not become one because it is a Wayspot. Or do you not understand that circular reasoning is a fallacious argument?
So even after Niantic CLEARLY clarified the trail markers recently, you saying you are ignoring that guidance?
That my friend is the definition of a problem voter who voted how they want instead of how Niantic say they should.
Just using common sense and logic its crazy an LFL someone puts on the edge of their property, with the expectation of people using it while standing on a public street, is considered a bad POI.
I would probably give them a low rating, yes.
Do you even know what a trail marker is? Thousands if not millions of people use them to go out to explore and exercise, without any Niantic apps. They are specifically placed there for people to explore and exercise. They don't suddenly become that because they are wayspots. What do you think their purpose is outside of Niantic apps?
Also, please stop derailing the topic.
Is it possible that because its on the pavement side of a fence, the nianti reviewer has taken the fence to be the property line and the bushes it's in as the public land? That's my first thought looking at it as thay would he a regular thing in my area
And it's common sense too if someone put something ON their private property with the expectation of people using it on a purpose (taking/giving a book) doesn't mean they agree the place being a meeting point of groups of people doing something not related to the purpose.
@Gazzas89-PGO certainly from a U.K. perspective this might be viewed differently.
I can also see an argument as to why this might have been reviewed as acceptable. However as this is one done be Niantic I would expect a more through look.
The LFL is well within the property lines, and I don't think Niantic reviewers assumed the wall is on the property lines. Sorry fot the repeated posts with the same photo. The site has been acting weirdly. I hope posting this text-only comment fixes the issue.
There are quite a lot of odd decisions turning up via appeals. I don’t think we can read anything definitive into any oneoftge
I totally expect that the Niantic reviewer assumed that the fenced marked the end of the PRP, so if you want to verify if wayspots inside PRP are allowed or not, send a removal request and if they deny it appeal it in the forums proving that it's PRP. Otherwise, it's just talk without any end in sight.
I am sure that this discussion is totally different from city to city, one country to another.
I live in Ohio, in the US, in a suburban area. We have sidewalks in front of our houses. Some people have Little Free Libraries in their yards, which to me means that they welcome people stopping by to take or leave a book, but I don't assume that they have waived any other rights.
If I set up a lemonade stand on the sidewalk in front of their house, I would expect them to complain. If I stood there and started to pass out political flyers, I would expect them to ask me to leave. It's fine to walk by, but it is not fine to stop and linger for any purpose unknown to the property owner.
We can quibble about whether these locations should be rejected due to PRP or whether they simply do not meet eligibility criteria, but regardless I would not approve a Wayspot in any of these locations.
I don't buy the result from one random removal request. I was just wondering why Niantic has been flipping our decisions after we'd rejected them according to our understanding of their guidelines, and thought this forum has the answer.
Welcome to the wonderful world of "Niantic Consistency"
I don't trust at all the results of one nomination appeal success.
You've made up your mind and I don't think that anyone else in this thread is buying your narrative.
There are several more examples but they were shared in a group where resharing is not allowed.
Have you seen a LFL on SFPRP which still got rejected upon appeal? Of course, appeals are for rejected nominations and people post more when the decision is flipped (so it's natural that we see only ones which got approved), but I have not seen a post from people who got them rejected.
Well, nobody from Niantic is seeing this thread apparently. All I wanted to see is "no, LFLs on SFPRP are still rejected on appeals and here is an example", or "yeah, I have been seeing the same patterns in our community and wonder why Niantic accepted them upon appeals", or some sort of clarifications on why what I'm seeing is happening from Niantic. A quick search tells us it's within a property line (of a SFPRP). I'm closing this thread. Thank you.