Single-Family Private Residential Property

HaramDingo-INGHaramDingo-ING Posts: 425 ✭✭✭✭

Before the Wayfarer 3.0 update, there was a specific clause and definition to private residential property:

To be clear, nominations should be rejected if their real-world location appears to be on private, single-family residential property or might encourage people to go onto private property (e.g., because the real-world location is at the end of a private driveway).

In today's Wayfarer Help criteria underneath the Rejection Criteria:

Location is a private residential property (even if historical), farmland, a K12 and under school (preschool, primary/elementary, secondary/high school), child care/daycare center, rehabilitation center, safety shelter

Unfortunately (unless I'm not scrounging around the criteria/convuluted help paged properly), the distinction is gone. Lately, this has caused numerous nominations in common areas of apartment complexes and townhouses to be rejected. A large playground within a rooftop complex, a tennis court on an apartment, and a table tennis table in a publicly accessible common area. Someone mocked one of my nominations as being in someone's backyard when it was clearly on apartment complex grounds.

If a new reviewer saw the playground above with that photo, they would immediately reject it for private residential property, despite it being in a common area.

Please reintroduce the specific wording of single-family or the encouragement to go onto private property at the end of a private driveway somewhere in the Help page or include some clarification somewhere. While single family residences are already in the rejection reason explanation, that is just a small sentence most reviewers would just skim over.



  • TheFarix-PGOTheFarix-PGO Posts: 2,329 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Private residential property has always meant single family residence. That definition hasn't changed with the 3.1 update.

  • IkariLisBob-INGIkariLisBob-ING Posts: 1 ✭✭

    Nothing changed for private property on the 3.1 update. What are you talking about?

  • As others have said, this guideline has not changed. Without any supporting information and based on this photo alone, I would also reject this nomination as it appears to be on private property and not part of a public space within a complex.

    It is up to the reviewer to provide sufficient details that the location in question is part of public space and not the responsibility of the reviewer to make assumptions. The criteria clearly state that if a nomination appears to be on private property, it should be rejected. I recommend revisiting your descriptions and supporting information to make sure this is clear to reviewers.

  • HaramDingo-INGHaramDingo-ING Posts: 425 ✭✭✭✭

    Read right between the lines between the two links above:

    ... private, single-family residential property, and

    ... is a private residential property.

    It is the exclusion of the descriptive "single-family" rule, now unwritten that is no longer mentioned anywhere in the Rejection criteria, let alone the entirety of the new Criteria tab nor anywhere in the Help tab under the Wayspot Eligibility section. As I said, the only time it refers to "single family" residential property in the entire process is the small blurb underneath the rejection reasons that people skim through when rush-rejecting something.

    The descriptive "single-family" was previously in the Help tab under a now-removed Ineligible Wayspots section. It now says "No such FAQ found!" All of a sudden, many nominations that were not previously rejected for being in apartment complexes are now being rejected. Sure, the guideline did not change but the vitally specific wording of "single-family" is completely gone. And they have argued the very exact Criteria tab and that specific line that the ineligibility criterion now applies to "residential property" in general.

    What's the point in trying to provide sufficient details when (newish) reviewers make assumptions anyway? They keep on arguing to me that the table tennis I submitted was in someone's backyard when they did not even look at the supporting statement or supplementary photo.

    tl;dr, explicitly mention the "single-family" descriptor as private single-family residential property back to the criteria.

    P.S. Just realised with a search that there is someone who posted who also wants the Wayfarer pages to explicitly mention "single-family" private residence as well.

  • Ultimo6419-PGOUltimo6419-PGO Posts: 88 ✭✭✭

    I think another criteria is the problem. The private property rule hasn't changed.

    It is the "publicly accessible" rule which is confusing reviewers if spots within an appartement complex are still eligible or not. It was asked in Nov AMA and will hopefully be answered soon.

  • 52cucumbers-ING52cucumbers-ING Posts: 197 ✭✭✭

    The only issue with this is that noone is going to write in the description that it's a private playground or in the supporting information that it isn't in a public space.

    Every single nomination I've seen is a "public playground" because of course submitters are going to write that regardless. Reviewers need clear criteria and simply cannot take the submitters word for it so in that case everything that "appears private" is going to get rejected and "appears" is not a clear criteria. So in effect it's a clearly stated unclear rule.

  • sogNinjaman-INGsogNinjaman-ING Posts: 1,515 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Then please can Niantic explicitly say this on an AMA or similar, with a definition. The 3.1 guidelines say "Unlike previous clarifications and small-scale changes, this is a complete overhaul of the criteria and overrides any previous AMA response or clarification here in the forum. The new criteria should be considered the new source of truth.". Does this mean all the previous AMA responses and guidelines have gone up in smoke or are no longer valid. Quite a few people seem to think so. We need some clarity please, particularly on contentions points.

Sign In or Register to comment.