Do objects in the middle of entrance roundabouts have safe pedestrian access?
I have seen several apartment complexes with roundabout-style entrances. Some of these function like a loading zone, and others are closer to decorative driveways between the street and the garage (where cars are technically not allowed to stop). In the middle of these roundabouts are fountains that do not have sidewalks or a place for people to stand without potentially being in the path of a (slow-moving) car. You can walk up to the fountain and touch it, but it is simply not safe to loiter in the circle, especially while looking at a phone.
Do these objects have safe pedestrian access even though there is not a dedicated pedestrian-only place to stand next to the POI?
My understanding of the rules is no, and many commenters in my appeal thread in the Ingress forums seemed to agree. @NianticCasey-ING said he would ask the team to take a second look, but I assume the thread was abandoned in the move to the Wayfarer forums. I do not see this case as any different than roundabouts in the middle of streets, except for the expected volume of traffic (which would also be low in a street roundabout in a rural neighborhood and to my knowledge that does not make them allowed).
Andrew Krug's answer in the (admittedly old) October 2017 AMA also seems to agree with my reasoning:
Q37: David Laight has asked a question on the following post, which regularly crops up in the appeals community, regarding how close a portal needs to be, for it to be valid. Most commonly, depending on the appeal type, the argument sways between the 40m deploy range and the 10m effective range of a level 1 ultrstrike. An opinion on distance would be nice, but an official ruling would be fantastic as it would end many debates on the distance factor.
A37: Great question. There are some examples of what to do and what not at https://opr.ingress..... To answer the question of the example in the post that was linked, a fountain in the middle of a lake would not be a valid portal if you could only reach it by standing on the banks of the lake. In the past, some of these low quality portals have been approved. But these would be rejected today. Can you reach out and touch the portal via safe pedestrian access? That's the question to ask.
This entrance has parking spaces on the outer rim, but the actual center is marked with a "no parking".
This entrance is entirely surrounded by red lanes with no places for cars to legally stop.
Both of these fountains are within 40m of the sidewalk and could be interacted with safely. HOWEVER, they do not match the guidance that we should be able to "reach out and touch with safe pedestrian access" since standing next to the fountain does put one in some non-zero amount of danger. Are objects located like this eligible?
Definitely an interesting question. I would think that these locations count as being within parking lots; around here, pedestrians have right-of-way in parking lots. I have also seen approved portals at locations on green space where the only way to get to it was via a parking lot, so a pedestrian would have to be able to traverse this safely in order to reach the green space (which, in itself, is of course valid).
I would be dubious about accepting those, my understanding was if theres is something in the middle of a roundabout, accept if theres is a pavement round the thing I the middle (so if it was a statue, there would be a pavement rou d the statue, then the road), as that is a pedestrian access, reject if the thing in question is an island with no pavement round it
Is it a road around the island or a driveway? The former fails but the latter is less clear cut.
I am curious about this Wayspot that was approved. I do not know when. Where, I do know but will not type. The picture is that of the statues in the middle of the roundabout. What are your thoughts since this one is likely less safe than the usually rejected ones?
I require no immediate answer. I must walk to cause the Wayspot to be removed if suggested. Niantic removed one nearby several days ago in a busy intersection. That was partially nominated eligibly. I reviewed the nomination and accepted.
Would Meed better context, ive no idea if theres a pavement or anything to it, at first glance I'd have rejected it as just an entrance sign but if its already accepted then that wouldn't matter
I do not enjoy providing what I am about to provide. 34.770935, -92.306007 is close to where the Wayspot is located. The tree causes issues if I put Google Maps into 3-D view. I had to turn the map so that it is looking from the west. The actual address is 1 Information Way, Little Rock, AR 72202. I do not know if the other is permissible. Based on the following picture and Google Maps, do you believe this should have been accepted or rejected during voting?
Hopefully, placing is able to help with an answer. People that know the roadways drive crazy here. I read the entirety above my post and can see arguments either way. Yes, I can see people wanting a Gym too.
My opinion is that it should depend on the layout of the centre. If there's a safe spot to stand next to the object (a verge of grass, pavement or something like that), I'd say it should be eligible, as having sidewalks on low-traffic roads isn't (and shouldn't be) a requirement).
@OvertimeWalker-PGO's example from Little Rock in the previous comment appears to have a verge of grass, so I'd say that's fine. However, the ones from San Diego in the OP don't seem to have anything like that, your only choice to approach the object is to stand on the driveway/roundabout/road, which would make them ineligible IMO.
Does that make sense?
I understand but will not direct this comment to either of you intentionally.