Little Free Libraries on Private Property



  • 0X00FF00-ING0X00FF00-ING Posts: 769 ✭✭✭✭✭

    The sidewalk itself is indeed “public access”, but Niantic insists that ALL wayspots be OFF of private residential property. That was half of @NianticGiffard’s comments in the thread.

    The first half being that things can be directly in FRONT OF private residential property, if it’s NOT on the actual property. Being embedded in the sidewalk itself is thus sufficiently off the property, because that sidewalk and (by extension) anything else on the city-owned easement is “city” land and not homeowner’s land.

    BUT. Merely being reachable from the sidewalk isn’t good enough, if the POI were instead on the homeowner’s land.

  • Japhyuri-PGOJaphyuri-PGO Posts: 15 ✭✭

    Thank you for the clarification, so in short any LFL registered or not, with the municipality line or not as long as it is in a suburd, rural area and infront of a single family home needs to be rejected. Now that is clearly stated when and how should we get rid of all the other approved LFL in a residential space to be fair?

  • 0X00FF00-ING0X00FF00-ING Posts: 769 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Not what I said nor what @NianticGiffard said.

    Partition the land like this:


    1. stuff on the road does not have “safe pedestrian access”. Reject
    2. in the vast majority of suburban USA and Canada, the boulevard is owned by the city, not the homeowner. Potentially acceptable.
    3. as above, things (like survey markers) in the sidewalk are potentially acceptable
    4. nothing in the yard is acceptable, even if reachable from the sidewalk
    5. as above, things in/on the house are not acceptable

    Giffard very very clearly said that things in/on the sidewalk itself are potentially eligible, EVEN IF directly in front of PRP. That makes the sidewalk a very clear and visible boundary between the PRP and the not-PRP, in such locations where the boulevard is owned by the city.

    Nothing he or anybody else at Niantic has said since has countermanded that opinion, and they have had countless opportunities.

  • Melurra-PGOMelurra-PGO Posts: 421 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Nowhere does the LFL mission statement say that LFLs are meant for suburbs? Also, each wayspot must be independently assessed for safe pedestrian access. How "big, scary, and dangerous" you think the downtown area of a nomination is is completely irrelevant for Wayfarer. If it has safe pedestrian access (and doesn't meet any rejection criteria), it doesn't matter if it's in a downtown area.

    Given the differences in size and history of the US and UK, I'll chime in (and my apologies if these things also apply to UK surburbs). US surburbs do have a lot of things that make good wayspots, most commonly parks and sports/recreational amenities, places of worship, and (regular) libraries. These things tend to be clustered, though, such as churches and murals along the main boulevard(s) of the suburb, and sports courts/fields in a park. But the suburbs are dominated by PRP, schools, and generic chain businesses, with PRP far outweighing the latter two and eligible POIs in most suburbs. There are parts of suburbs for square miles where nothing is eligible because everything is just PRP and streets. What this results in is a drive or an inconvenient walk or bike ride of a mile or more just to spin a PokeStop, and perhaps longer to reach a PokeStop cluster. So when someone in the heart of a PRP area has an LFL or one of their neighbors does, they want their LFL to be acceptable. I suspect that there are similar PRP swaths in the UK, but the scale is probably bigger in the US. (And before anyone gets mad, I grew up in a suburb and have played Niantic games there from time to time. The surburb is small and probably doesn't have more than a square mile of PRP anywhere, but neighboring suburbs definitely have much larger PRP areas, as do suburbs of the city where I live now. And no, not every suburb is identical, some have more wayspots than others.)

  • angerfisted-PGOangerfisted-PGO Posts: 1 ✭✭

    Just approve the LFLs, most pogo players need to read more anyway.

  • X0bai-PGOX0bai-PGO Posts: 1,667 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited July 2022

    Arguing zoning laws =/= arguing criteria

    The criterion clearly states that anything on PRP is ineligible. Any existing POI on PRP is subject to removal if reported. No exceptions. Wayfarer is not “Pokemon Go, but make more stops,” and if that’s the game you’re playing you’re going to have a bad time.

    Personally, I live in a suburb and I have seven gyms within sight of my house, three of them located at three different community parks, three of them at two churches, and one at the football field of the local college. That said, I’m in an established neighborhood; newer suburban areas are somewhat likely to have nothing eligible for some distance around, as the typical amenities that would meet criteria tend to fill in well after the people do.

  • Japhyuri-PGOJaphyuri-PGO Posts: 15 ✭✭

    I just hope they have more support for the Nonprofit LFL. But if it is a big NO then nothing can be done except reporting and removing those LFL. In our suburd few pokemon go submitted a request for the Maverick gas station 2 miles away but got rejected. A business infront of the said gas station and the community sign was rejected as well so we are are just confused of the criterias. But 5 mls away a LFL in an old neighborhood has a stop as well as the community sign LOL.

  • Melurra-PGOMelurra-PGO Posts: 421 ✭✭✭✭✭

    The criteria are "a great place to explore, exercise, or socialize." What criteria would the gas stations or subdivision sign meet?

  • Japhyuri-PGOJaphyuri-PGO Posts: 15 ✭✭

    Here in Colorado, they only approve wayspot downtown. Barely in suburb nor rural area. SO pokemon player became created, thy try adding sculpture's and became a LFL stewart which they need to pay out of their poket to help fellow pokemon hunters in the neighborhood. But they all got denied for 2 criteria residential property and pedestrial access.

    There are LFL that is not part of the LFL org that got accepted but most LFL that has a registered charter are denied.

  • Japhyuri-PGOJaphyuri-PGO Posts: 15 ✭✭

    I am sorry for asking alot, I just wanted to BE

    fair. So on this image, A will accepted if a LFL is on that location, but B will be rejected since it's in PRP "nothing in the yard is acceptable, even if reachable from the sidewalk. As above, things in/on the house are not acceptable". Even if they are registered with LFL?

  • Elijustrying-INGElijustrying-ING Posts: 5,326 Ambassador


    A appears to be (U.K. player hence appears) on public land so PRP does not apply.

    B appears to be part of individual private property so that would mean reject.

    The status of the LFL is not a key decider in that process.

    Reviewers will check that the LFL looks permanent, I guess registration might help but I really don’t know the system.

    A different approach to wayspot finding might be needed. I appreciate that these housing estates might not have much to work with. Are there interesting things in the community - perhaps a history of the area, or something linked nature or a public place where a community project could be? There appears to be patches of green space, and there are rivers in the parks. Have you tried contacting your local council ( don’t know equivalent in US) and suggesting they develop some outdoors educational resources - information boards, covering interesting aspects of the local area. Could part of a green area area be helped to become wild ( information board). Are there facebooks or other groups that could help drive these? You might even get permission for a LFL in one of these locations and have a small group agreeing to look after it.

    Just some ideas to move away from current situation which must be frustrating.

  • X0bai-PGOX0bai-PGO Posts: 1,667 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited July 2022

    That LFL will almost certainly be rejected as PRP in either position. In a suburb, you will need to be very clearly off and away from PRP (such as on a park or church) to not get rejected.

    As for criteria, they change over time, so existing spots are not a good guide for new spots. What may have been eligible one or three or six years ago may not be eligible any more. Niantic doesn’t remove the old ones (unless they meet removal criteria, which are basically PRP, K-12 school, unsafe locations, and fake spots), so the presence of a spot does not prove the current eligibility of that spot.

    Current criteria are:

    -a great place to socialize

    -a great place to exercise

    -a great place to explore

    Your nomination, especially in the supporting info field, should clarify which of these your nomination meets.

  • TWVer-INGTWVer-ING Posts: 777 ✭✭✭✭✭

    No, position A will definitely be a position that Niantic considers not to be on prp. They will approve it on appeal, and if they don't, it will be overturned when discussed here. And it will not be removed unless the removal is asked by a home owner who lives within 40m of it.

    And no, that is not something that changed over time. Private residential property has never extended to the street. Every single time Niantic clarifies this, there is outrage in part of the community. And a couple of months later, they act like those clarifications were never made again.

  • JillJilyJabadoo-PGOJillJilyJabadoo-PGO Posts: 1,082 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Because the clarifications never say A is definitely not PRP. Because Niantic can't say that and never will. That depends on local laws. If you can find a clarification that says "the str.ip of grass between the sidewalk and the road isn't PRP", please post it. (And I mean something clarifying the status of the str.ip, not the sidewalk, not the gutter, not the road, not things outside of a fence, literally the grass str.ip in front of a house.)

  • TWVer-INGTWVer-ING Posts: 777 ✭✭✭✭✭

    It has nothing to do with local laws. It depends on title deeds where your property ends. But that is not really relevant to this discussion. What Casey meant when she mentioned local laws, was in relation to objects on PRP, in an area that can be used by (part of) the public, like for example if a road runs through a PRP, that a farmer has the right to use to access his field, or a LFL that 'invites' people onto the PRP. She was not talking about things in front of the property in the public space.

    So I have to prove that Niantic didn't say PRP extends beyond the property border, and not only that, I can't use a whole lot of clarifications to do it? That's not how it works. You are making the claim that Niantic uses another definition for private residential property than the official definition. The burden of proof is on you to show that. The **** is outside of the fence and on the other side of the sidewalk, so that means that it is not considered PRP. Or are you saying that PRP stops at the sidewalk, then starts again at the other side of the sidewalk?

  • X0bai-PGOX0bai-PGO Posts: 1,667 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Yeah, there is no link to that because Niantic has never said it because that’s not the guideline.

  • JillJilyJabadoo-PGOJillJilyJabadoo-PGO Posts: 1,082 ✭✭✭✭✭

    All I'm saying is that you have a link to a clarification from Niantic that "position A will definitely be a position that Niantic considers not to be on prp", please post it.

  • TWVer-INGTWVer-ING Posts: 777 ✭✭✭✭✭

    If I say that a church needs a rooster on top to be eligible, is that also a valid position? Prove to me that Niantic has said that a rooster is not required.

    Niantic doesn't consider it prp because it isn't prp. And Niantic has never suggested they have a different definition of prp. They always talk about on the property, or on the wall or fence of the property. The idea that prp extends beyond that was made up by the community. It was never suggested by Niantic. If you make the claim that an area outside of prp must be considered prp, then it is up to you to prove that. Not up to me to disprove it.

  • TheFarix-PGOTheFarix-PGO Posts: 5,063 ✭✭✭✭✭

    But what shows it to be not on private residential property? That is the problem that reviewers have to deal with. We were originally instructed to give close scrutiny to make sure that a Wayspot is not on private residential property. Laws are different from location to location. In some cases, the property line stops short of the sidewalk. In other cases, the sidewalk goes through the private residential property, meaning both sides of the sidewalk is PRP. And you cannot use fences or hedgerows as a judge for where the property line is because some counties and municipalities place setback requirements for property lines that run along a street or road.

    In short, property lines are very rarely marked with clear barriers or other objects. So most reviewers are going to play it safe and reject a LFL unless it is absolutely clear that it is not located on private residential property.

  • X0bai-PGOX0bai-PGO Posts: 1,667 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Rooster on a church? Why not a scarecrow, so the straw man arguing can be more on the nose?

  • JillJilyJabadoo-PGOJillJilyJabadoo-PGO Posts: 1,082 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Nope. Not asking you to show Niantic's position on church roosters, just your original claim: "And no, that is not something that changed over time. Private residential property has never extended to the street. Every single time Niantic clarifies this, there is outrage in part of the community. And a couple of months later, they act like those clarifications were never made again."

    Since there are no links, I think we've pretty well clarified at this point that there are no clarifications about the grass str.ip that keep getting ignored.

  • JillJilyJabadoo-PGOJillJilyJabadoo-PGO Posts: 1,082 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I'm not even debating whether or not that str.ip is PRP. I don't personally think it's always PRP. Just looking for the Niantic clarifications about that str.ip that have been rumored to exist but never linked.

  • TWVer-INGTWVer-ING Posts: 777 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Gendgi-PGO already posted some of those clarifications in this thread. On the sidewalk is okay, as long as it is not interfering (not touching in any way) with the prp. Things on the other side of the sidewalk are even further away from the property. Why would they suddenly not be okay?

    I keep asking for examples of areas where properties extend upto and beyond the sidewalk in these discussions. Still waiting.

  • dman41689-PGOdman41689-PGO Posts: 289 ✭✭✭

    its still in front of someones house it gives them an unfair advantage. also if they move they take it with them so it would also count as temporary

  • TWVer-INGTWVer-ING Posts: 777 ✭✭✭✭✭

    What does that have to do with anything? Should we reject all wayspots in cities because it would give them an unfair advantage over rural players?

    Everything is temporary. Is there any indication they are going to move? Then it is not temporary.

    Stick to the Niantic criteria. Don't make up your own. And don't follow those made up by the community.

  • dman41689-PGOdman41689-PGO Posts: 289 ✭✭✭

    ok and niantic said it must be on public spaces not in front of someones house. dont try and make up a loop hole so you can get a wayspot infront of your house.

  • TWVer-INGTWVer-ING Posts: 777 ✭✭✭✭✭

    In front of someones house outside of the property is public space.

    I don't have anything wayspot worthy anywhere near my house. And eligible objects in these locations are easy acceptances in my country.

  • dman41689-PGOdman41689-PGO Posts: 289 ✭✭✭
    edited July 2022

    you're not making any sense sounds like a problem for you. Niantic wants you to actually leave you're house to play the game not sit at home if you don't understand that I can't help you

  • TWVer-INGTWVer-ING Posts: 777 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I want people to follow the rules. If you don't follow the rules for whatever reason, you shouldn't be reviewing.

  • dman41689-PGOdman41689-PGO Posts: 289 ✭✭✭

    why do you think I'm not following the rules? because I won't approve something that's infront of someones house? clearly you're not following the rules

Sign In or Register to comment.