Why the special ruling with Playgrounds only?
In January the clarifications surrounding Playgrounds got the addition that if within 40 meters of a private residence it was ineligible, instead of just needing closer judging when it comes to the position while being reviewed.
This ruling has made roughly 99% of all Playgrounds placed in Swedish suburbs ineligible, due to them usually being placed either in an empty lot reserved for the purpose, often located between two lots with houses on them, or in the central gathering area in a culdesac. Playgrounds like these are almost the only eligible POI in these areas and now, even though they're on public land, open for everyone, not only residents living there, they are a no-go.
This only applies to Playgrounds, which is very wierd. A gazebo, a football field, a fountain, trailmarker or a LFL in the same place would only be subject to closer scrutiny if within 40 meters of a residential property, not outright ineligible.
Here's 3 examples of what I mean:
1: Playground in the center of a suburban area, located in the "park" created in the green space in the middle. Ineligible under the current guidelines.
2: Playground located in a larger green space, with a tennis court next to it and a small soccer field to the left of them. The playground is ineligible due to the 40m ruling, but the tennis court /soccer field is fine as long as the POI is not placed on private property, in this case anywhere on the court/field itself.
3: "Culdesac" Playground, placed in a central green space separate from a residential property by a road. Ineligible under current rules. If it had been a park with a fountain and some benches it would have been fine.
Why the special ruling with Playgrounds only?
I wonder if the "within 40 meters of private residences" points to the house specifically, i.e. for large private properties where 40m from the house is still encouraging trespassing?
But agreed that public playgrounds, surrounded by houses should be eligible.
As long as it's not a school or PRP, it should be OK.
It would be interesting to understand why this changed, because before January Playgrounds had the same guidelines as everything else in a suburban area. Then suddenly with the clarification of indoor playgrounds/business playgrounds they got more or less outright banned in huge areas with the 40m ruling.
Sadly, Niantic have always been silent when asked 'why?', even when a bit of clarification would help us follow the intention of their rules rather than the letter.
You guys don't need to know "why." Just follow the rules.
When one single, otherwise eligible POI gets an arbitrary rule out of the blue that doesn't affect anything else in the same location at all it's a very good idea to ask "Why?".
Why is a playground ineligible within 40m of a residential property but absolutely no other POI has this limitation?
I hate to break it to you, but regarding #2, sports fields also got slapped with this restriction, even before playgrounds did:
Athletic fields - Eligible, as long as they are publicly accessible. If the fields are marked by signs, submit the signs as Wayspots. Also, ensure that the Wayspot appears to be at least 40 meters away from a private residence.
(From Potentially Confusing Nominations.)
I Always thought the 40m rule was for any POI that were within 40m of a PRP due to their lawsuit.
I believe Niantic does not want people trespassing too. However, I know or knew of people that nominated large playgrounds several times making sure that the pictures did not overlap to get extra Wayspots. 40 meters is the minimum distance from residential property. That is more than just the house. Imagine people carefully planning nominations so that more nominations could be. I guess. Some are not near residential property. Others are almost on the property line since that was what I was instructed was what mattered. Excluding a huge amusement park or Central Park, how many times should a playground be nominated before a continuous supply of yeses stop. That might be part of the reason. Again, I only guess. What is the thoughts regarding playgrounds in city parks? As long as each is at least 40 meters from the nearest residential property, is each eligible? I do not live in Sweden. Ich bin ein Little Rocker.
@OvertimeWalker-PGO I'm not sure I understand what you're asking (language barrier maybe?) But it sounds like you're asking about making multiple nominations from one playground. For example, a playground with swings, climbing structure, slide, etc. Niantic has stated there should be only ONE POI per play area. (You can generally see what is part of one play area). However, if there are two play areas a good distance apart, each one can have a POI (like at one side of a park, there are swings and see saws=1 POI. But on the other end of the park, there are slides and a climbing structure = 1 POI). Now, if each of these items were scattered around a park, spaced apart a LOT, there can be an argument for each thing having a POI.
In terms of the main discussion- this is one of the only guidelines I don't follow to a "T" because I'm not convinced that Niantic really wanted a public playground in a public park to get denied if there's a single family home 30m away.
Personally, if its abundantly clear that the playground is part of a public park, with a sign, and clear barriers separating the park area from nearby homes... I still accept them. But I fully admit that I am not adhering to the rules. I follow the PRP rules very carefully otherwise- no little free libraries next to houses, no murals on barrier walls outside PRP, etc. But the guidance on playgrounds and athletic fields here does not make sense to me.
Part of me wonders if they wrote it this way just to cover their butts. I'd be interested to see if someone reported a playground within 40m of PRP , if Niantic would actually remove it.
I hope existing play area waypoints within 40m of residential properties are not removed... I can think of 4 play area waypoints like that within a 15 minute walk of my home! And if we looked at all waypoints within 40m of a house then we could probably say goodbye to at least half of all our waypoints! None of these are actually on PRP, but in the UK, a lot of homes don't have large grounds, and even open directly onto the street. We have many narrow roads too, so something can be on the other side of the road and still be within 40m of a house. We have houses next to park gates, probably 5m from the entrance sign. But it is not on PRP! Just next to it. We would be left with almost nothing in many areas.
Also, how are we supposed to work out 40m accurately in the review process? I would know the rough distance, but was it 35 or 45m? I can tell if its on private property because of visible hedges or fences etc, but I can't tell an arbitrary distance very accurately on a tiny little Google maps screen on my phone.
If Niantic clarifies this and confirms nothing is eligible within 40m of PRP then it would be so discouraging because we'd lose so much and have nothing possible to gain back in so many areas. Rural areas would become the main places with eligible waypoints!
Didn’t know about the 40m rule until I started nominating POI’s and using wayfarer about a month ago.
My opinion, if you apply the 40m rule as should be , I think there wouldn’t almost be a single POI in cities left.
I don’t see why a POI isn’t considered eligible if it’s on private property but reachable within 20 (or 10m) of a public place. As for in PoGo (don’t know about the other games) you only spin a stop to get items and they extended the reach to spin a stop so far, that we can now spin it from within 40 meters (I think even further). The problem starts when a POI becomes a gym, people will gather there and this can serve for nuisance, so they should take this more in to consideration.
But as I said, this is my opinion seen from only one game 🙂
Part of the issue with things that are "reachable" but technically on PRP is how the mechanics in Ingress work. For some actions in that game, you must be right on the POI. The other issue is that stops/gyms spawn pokemon in a radius around it (I forget now how bigvthecradius is, 20 or 40m I believe). So in a case where say, a little free library, is a stop in front of a house, you can only reach spawns that are in front of it. But things can also spawn behind it, possibly well onto someone's private property. With the tracking feature, it shows which pokemon are at which stop. People would be tempted to walk up onto someone's private property.
Im sure there are more things too, but those are some reasons why POIs shouldn't be right on the edge of PRP.
Also- big cities don't have to worry about this quite as much. Most housing is multifamily in a lot of cases, which are not part of the these PRP rules (single family homes only).
i thought the guidance isn't that within 40 meters must be rejected. It's that anything specifically ON PRP should be rejected, and Niantic needs to tell reviewers to be extra careful when reviewing locations that are within 40m of PRP or in neighborhood parks. You only have to reject if within 40m AND the POI would encourage players to enter into / into PRP or otherwise tresspass.
i also thought the 40m stemmed from a US lawsuit and therefore not internationally applicable.
But overall I don’t understand why niantic is short sighted on somethings that interpretations are too strict, and so vague on other rulings.
The confusion is that they say both things in different places. As someone quoted, it does say to accept playgrounds as long as it's at least 40m from PRP. But in yet another place, they also say to give extra attention to anything within 40m of PRP to ensure it doesn't encourage trespassing. I personally follow the latter guideline.
With that said, these guidelines apply to everywhere in the world NOT just the US. Niantic has clarified that both in these forums and on the Wayfarer Reddit.
You actually understood. I typed what was done. When I see a playground for private use, I usually give a no. I will name businesses. If a huge amusement park like Disney World, Disney Land, Universal Studios, Six Flags, etc, is near residential property, when is the limit on Wayspots? I agree that large parks can have more than one playground or POI and many do. The smaller ones usually require a picture for me to do more than skip or deny.
Personally I just ignore the 40m rule so lo g as the play park isn't attacked to the prp (so a road, path or a **** of land in between). These are areas open to the public, they are where people will gather anyway, so there is no reason to reject because a rule that is controdi tory to itself with 2 clarifications. If we were to follow the rule, cul de sacs/ sub urban areas would take such a massive hit that they may as well be unplayable again
The 40 m rule is most stupid and weird rule there is. It leads to wildly different interpretations and lowering of ratings.
Sometimes, it is not even possible to follow - for an example: semidetached houses with multiple stories can be both private residences and rental apartments, and it is impossible to know what they are.
Why exactly playgrounds and sports fields should be hit by the rule is also bizarre. Why not also a statue?
The old rule was at least possible to use, and the 40 rule should be put where it belongs, in the trash can.
Rules should always be openly scrutinized, otherwise bad or outdated ones will not change or be removed.
These "playgrounds" are mostly points of no interest"
A big problem is that players nominate swings and sandpits as playgrounds, internationally I think a playground is a park with more than just a swing, sandpit and some other small objects. All these nominated playgrounds destroy the gaming as players try to place "playgrounds" close to their residens so they can reach it from their sofa. Often misplaced on purpose or even non existing fake portals. This started when Niantic allowed low level players (from lvl 8 ) to propose portals in combination with the start of Pokemon Go.
These facts has led to Ingressplayers not wanting to review new portals. As a response to this Niantic made up more medals and others to encourage reviewing. I don´t think it helped.
When I review portals there are maybe 2 out of ten that are acceptable.
Pogo players who state they have no gym or what ever in their neighborhood when submitting a portal are directly refused, that is no reason for submitting a portal, if its not a very good portal, they rarely are.
The rules say that one playground can be submitted as a portal, not every part of it, I guess the same rule goes for sports fields with several grounds together. It should be only one portal.
This is how I see it,
Keep playing by the rules ;-)