It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.
Sign In with Ingress Sign In with Pokémon GO
So I’ve seen an influx of these lately and I’m not sure how to proceed. LFLs are eligible, yes, but does their location at the end of a driveway/at the end of the yard make them ineligible?
Right, private residential property makes them ineligible.
Lately I have been seeing nominations of LFLs on private property with supporting info that says something like "Niantic has said that LFLs on private property are okay as long as they don't interfere with the property." As far as I know, that's just a lie.
Good to know, thank you!
Giffard said something to that effect and shortly thereafter rolled it back, saying that statement never gave any approval for anything on PRP.
Keep rejecting them.
yea they only meet the criteria if they are in public places like parks, shopping centers, villages, colleges, businesses, etc.
We had a clarification from @NianticGiffard some time back, perhaps somebody else has bookmarked it and can find it for you.
In many municipalities, such as the vast majority of Canada and the USA, a residential property's ownership does NOT extend fully to the street. There is often a "fenceline" or sidewalk demarcating the boundary of the boulevard/easement/right-of-way.
The city or municipality legally owns the land closer to the street, where things like utility poles, fire hydrants, electrical boxes and the like are erected. The adjoining property's owner is still required to keep the grass/weeds/etc maintained, but they don't own the land.
The clarification was that this str.ip of land is public property and is NOT "Private Residential Property", and as such waypoints are allowed to be nominated there.
One still requires legal permission from the municipality in order to erect things there though. Where I live, the biggest concern is that sightlines for traffic remains clear, and so only things that are about 1m or shorter are allowed. And so yes, that includes most LFLs.
The debate about the verge or easment always comes up. I don't recall anyone from Niantic weighing in with that clarification you've stated. Please post it when you find it so I can change my votes on PRP.
I think they're referring to this post.
Which of course is not to be taken without context of Giffard's follow-up:
Ah. Thanks for that one. That that actually sounds more restrictive, though and doesn't say anything at all about verge/easment clarification. @0X00FF00-ING did you mean this one or a different one?
Nope, that’s the one. Let’s take it in parts:
The example given in the above post had a LFL exactly on the edge of the property, but still on the property. You could reach it and interact with the LFL without otherwise encroaching the property, standing on the sidewalk. But that access does not make the LFL allowable under the rules.
BUT. The opposite side of the sidewalk is NOT part of the PRP, it is “city” owned land. Had the LFL instead been on the boulevard, then in Wayfarer terms it would have been acceptable.
The caveat being that not all municipalities even allow structures to be erected on the boulevard. Other municipalities (like mine) are more lax, allowing one to place their birdhouses or whatever there, as long as they don’t interfere with vehicular sightlines.
(This will be a double post eventually because I edited a word. Since it's the weekend, I'm reposting.)
"The clarification was that this str.ip of land is public property and is NOT "Private Residential Property""
Giffard didn't say anything about verges or easments and whether or not they are public property or should be considered PRP for Wayfarer. It's incorrect to cite that clarification as if he did.
Fake news. Nobody from Niantic ever said that. This is speculation on your part turning a brief - and general - statement into a specific criteria guideline.
DO read the whole thread, with the specific question asked, and the very precise way @NianticGiffard answered.
I paraphrase here for better clarity, but the specific question asked was whether nominations immediately in front of the house are allowed (ie this “boulevard” space), and he replied that (with the qualification that it not be merely accessible from the sidewalk).
Did you read the whole thread? There was a bunch of back and forth by commenters about whether the grass is PRP or not, but Giffard addressed none of those comments. The original post that started the thread wasn't even about things on that str.ip. It was about survey markers embedded in pavement.
You're free to interpret Giffard's response however you want, and relay that interpretation to others, but you really need to make that clear. "My interpretation of that clarification", not implying that Giffard stated a verge is not PRP.
If, in your municipality, the homeowner also owns the land on both sides of the street, then that land is also PRP and anything nominated there is ineligible. In most urban areas in Canada and the USA you would also be in the minority. The sidewalk and boulevard there is also commonly known as a “right of way” or an “easement”.
On the other hand if you live in a municipality like mine where the city owns the land up to X meters (or feet) from the centre of the road, then it’s a different circumstance, and nominations ARE allowed.
It’s up to the local submitter to know their own municipality’s rules.
But is it also up to the reviewer to know and/or verify the laws for the municipality of each relevant submission? If so, I'm sorry, but I'm not doing that. When a submitter of a LFL in front of a single family house says something in their supplement like "According to City of X law, the city owns the first three feet of the yard after the sidewalk" or whatever, it just sounds made up anyway. Maybe it's not, but I'm not going to try to interpret municipal zoning and property laws for someone's couch nomination.
Once you start arguing law, other than criteria, you have lost the point.
Agreed. I'm not debating that. Purely pointing out that Giffard didn't make any sort of clarification about that str.ip and if it was or wasn't part of PRP, likely because as you said it varies by local law.
Niantic always goes with the stricter laws. No cemeteries because that's insensitive in some cultures. Pedestrian access must be visibly obvious. Property owners own to the street.
In the U.S., the easement/right-of-way is the property-owner's responsibility - to mow and maintain. Until the government wants it (to widen the road), it is part of the house's yard. In residential neighborhoods, the road will likely never be widened. Cables might be buried along there, but still it's the property-owner's yard.
Are we still having this discussion? Every single time Niantic talks about this, they talk about the property, and the wall and fence of the property. Everything outside is okay. That is always what they use when making decisions about this in the appeals section. Never have they stated it extends to the street. Accept it and let this silly myth die.
So, are LPL allowed as wayspot or not? It seems ridicule to me, that there are so many of them, that are listed as wayspot, and the moment i spot a new one, take a nice picture (without people, property or numberplates or whatsoever) and a good description, it gets rejected (And without any motivation, i hate that!) . Of course it is on someones land! But they WANT you to come and get those books. Nothing wrong with that. It is a question of jurisdiction, since on the property, it's the owner that must take care of the LPL, and not the town or county. It's as simple as that. Should i just take a new picture or place the rejection in the right discussion?
It doesn’t matter if the subject is eligible when the location is ineligible. A Little Free Library is an eligible subject. But anything on private residential property is ineligible, same as an elementary school or the middle of a lake. Rejection criteria overrides acceptance criteria.
Your argument about ‘the presence of an LFL is an open invitation to come onto the property’ has been argued and roundly refuted an uncountable number of times in these forums. You should read a few of those uncountable number of arguments.
Then this discussion will never stop, since there are way to many LPL that were accepted, but they are ALL, and i repeat, ALL, on private property. So, better Niantic deletes all those stops, or they accept the fact that people have put them there for a purpose. It's not that people are tresspassing. They are on the sidewalk and look for books. Clearly there are country differences in place here.
You are always welcome to report any that fall foul of the private residential property criteria and have them removed from the database.
There are plenty of little free libraries that are on public property. Here in the UK, for example, we have several old phone boxes that have been converted into little free libraries. We also have clearly defined property boundaries for the most part, so it's usually easy to tell if something is or is not on private residential property.
Regarding the fact that people placing them on private property clearly want people to use them, that's irrelevant. Niantic don't want PRP wayspots in their database. Again, using the UK as an example, we have lots of brown and blue heritage plaques, and some of these happen to be on PRP. The homeowner has to give consent for the plaque to be placed on their property, and it has to be available to the general public to view, but it would still be ineligible as a wayspot because it's on PRP.
You are incorrect. Little Free Libraries are not exclusively on residential property. They are often present in parks, in front of churches, near businesses, on apartment grounds, and in my town we even have them in front of the actual local library branches. All of these are valid POIs.
Any LFLs you see on private residential property you can submit for removal; PRP is a removal criterion.
no portal is ok on private single family house , doesnt matter what kind of portal it is, so just report that and hopefull niantic will remove them.
https://littlefreelibrary.org/about/ LFL are ment to be in suburb areas since their mission and vision states "Our mission is to be a catalyst for building community, inspiring readers, and expanding book access" thus LFL right beside the sidewalk of suburb should be approved.
Why don't be smart and just approve those LFL that is unique, right beside a sidewalk and has the LFL Charter sign.
Reject those LFL that are not register, way to far from the side walk and not visually Unique (no art at all).
By doing so we are helping the nonprofit org, increase community engagement and increase creativity to the LFL community. Niantic can even earn from this by partnering with the LFL's. Not only that Niantic prove that education, creativity and communtiy engagement is part of the mission but also prove that they also support suburd.
Do we need to go just down town to be able to get pokestop why can't we have pokestop in the suburd and rural area by allowing the LFL's? Isn't is a safer place to walk around the neighborhood than downtown?
If a LFL is on private residential property, it is supposed to be rejected. No ifs, no ands, no buts, no exceptions! Those are Niantic's explicit rules and as a reviewer, you should abide by them.
I just wanted to pick up on this because it has me curious. For those living in a suburban area, how many wayspots can you see within your local area in your game(s) of choice?
I ask because whilst rural areas often struggle with a lack of wayspots, I've never really thought suburbs would struggle. Maybe it's just a UK perspective, but suburbs here often have multiple things to submit, such as parks, play areas, trail markers, places of worship, pubs, and various other acceptable things. It seems like a strange concept to me that there are suburbs that wouldn't have any of these things, but as I said, I only have a UK perspective.
Isn't a sidewalk on a suburd a public access? And are you familiar of the zoning and setback? 3-5 ft front, side and back of the properties are owned by the municipality for utilities and such?