Are pools supposed to be A-ok now?
Elysion9710-PGO Posts: 13 ✭✭
edited December 2020 in Criteria Clarifications
So are community pools now eligible since they fall under the "A Great Place for Exercise" Eligibility criteria?
It wasn't before, but due to the criteria change last month, all the clarifications from past forums are now deemed null and void.
Post edited by NianticGiffard on
As I keep mentioning:
Niantic is going to face a lawsuits if they allow pools.
pools fall into the Attractive Nuisance Doctrine in the US and if anyone is injured/dies the owner of the attractive nuisance is liable. here, niantic’s AR pin (their asset and property) is superimposed on/near the pool WITHOUT the permission/knowledge of the owner (be it the city/county, homeowners association, or apartment complex) would make Niantic liable for the ****/injury.
Thats why they were so quick to remove it from the website.
now, why they were readded in the amas , I would have to guess that it’s because, as we all know, niantic is So aMazing aT cOmMunicting. Regardless, I would be okay with the famous Olympic pools because those usually have a lifeguard on duty and security cameras. The local apartment/community pools most often don’t.
Honestly, @NianticCasey-ING should have had a serious talk with Niantic lawyers before amending the criteria again. I do not want the company to enter another giant lawsuit. Especially over something as obvious as an attractive nuisance pool case that even baby 1st year, 1st semester law students could point out
Currently criteria says yes. No matter what person above mentions. Until niantic mentions that its not it fits criteria
However, if it's true then the criteria should be carried over, right?
Until nianitix clear it up, all previous guidance and amas are to be forgotten and the new guidance be the facts. So pools would be good exercise, meaning g they are again acceptable imo
@NianticCasey-ING please speak with the legal department, the new guidelines are a litigation nightmare waiting to happen.
niantic is “on notice” that this new guideline is encouraging and allowing players submit dangerous and unsafe wayspots like pools.
even the “ineligible location, place, or object...location is unsafe, without pedestrian access...” is ambiguous enough that it is being liberally applied by new submitters. I have seen multiple people on this official Niantic forum say they will now submit pools (again which are legally automatically an attractive nuisance and will make Niantic liable). Many people in local in the official forums and local groups have now say, as a user on this official thread mentioned, “all previous guidance and amas are to be forgotten and the new guidance to be the facts.”
So, anything that was dangerous and Niantic acknowledged as dangerous in previous amas or comments made by official employees within the scope of their employment is now being ignored: pools, lake fountains, fire hydrants, etc .... all things that a City with a good law firm can and will attack Niantic for if any accident happens.
Please make sure the guidelines does NOT lead Niantic into a another expensive lawsuit. The class action was just settled in 2019...speaking of....the new guidelines VIOLATE section (f) of the settlement agreement.
My rule of thumb has been if the pool has a bathhouse, which includes changing rooms, and has lifeguard stations, then it is acceptable so long as it does not meet any rejection criteria. In this case, the Wayspot should be located at the front entrance of the bathhouse. If however, is just a pool surrounded by a fence or has no lifeguard stations, then it is ineligible.
This question is addressed in the AMA response for this month!
Thanks for your concern @Agent86494r8-ING, I would encourage you to review the rejection criteria, which specifically states the following and covers your concerns:
Ineligible location, place, or object
My concern is that Niantic is making itself vulnerable to litigation. please talk with the legal department. ESPECIALLY ABOUT violating the settlement agreement that explicitly says that Niantic would add the private residential home 40m “scrutnity” to the criteria page (not hidden in an ama). And address the pool attractive nuisance issue.
The ama says pools are still ineligible: “hotels (or other similar residentially-focused locations) are ineligible.” But everyone is ignoring this and submitting the “residentially focused location pools” because the actual “criteria” page is vague and even the ama later contradicts itself and says:
“Other than that, pools would be a great place to meet and that encourages exercise and should be considered eligible. This includes public pools, pools or training complexes with historical context, reflecting pools, fountains, aquatic centers and cooldown centers, university pools, sport arenas/complexes and more.”
Well the AMA only states that some pools are ineligible and not in general, like you seem to be stating in your second paragraph, so I don't think anything has been contradicted in that section. Those are just exceptions to the rule that a ton of other swimming pools can be nominated now.
That being said, I have went on a bit further in the AMA to ask about what they meant by "residentially-focused locations"
I could be spinning stops at a baseball park, not pay attention, and get clocked by a foul ball.
I could be battling a gym at a skate park, not pay attention, and get trucked by a skateboarder.
I could be doing a raid at a hockey rink, not pay attention, and get a puck to the face from a deflected shot.
Get the logic that can be used? If "drownings are a potential issue", then you may as well get rid of any wayspot that's beside a pond, river, or any other body of water.
Disagree. Pools fall into the specific category of “attractive nuisance” in the court of law. If anyone gets hurt niantic will be held liable. Especially since that have ample notice that the community is currently disregarding even their amas, and submitting residentially focused area pools - like clubhouses with no lifeguards. It is reasonably foreseeable that someone will get hurt. Again, the city/county, homeowners association, apartment complex investment group will come after Niantic.
You are wrong. Look at the current ama’s that they just released. Some pools are eligible. Get over it
there was nothing “wrong” in my observation that pools fall squarely into the “attractive nuisance” doctrine.
if you read the comments I wrote, you would see that I am mainly concerned that Niantic will get sued in the foreseeable future. I just want to bring this to their attention. Especially since it took them around 3 years to settle the class action trespassing suit (and I’m assuming the injury was almost nominal compared to what this could be) — and the new “criteria” page openly violated one of the settlement agreement clauses.
sure, I will follow the new ama guidelines and accept the Olympic and Sports Complex pools (as my comments above suggested these at least usually have a lifeguard/security). I just really hope submitters do not place the pin in the middle of the pools - but as I currently just reject 2 lake fountains with pins in the middle of the lake and already a private single home pool with the pin in the center of the pool .... things are not looking good.
I did a quick Google search and found that "attractive nuisance" doctrine only applies to pools at private homes. These are already ineligible with Niantic's rejection criteria of objects on private residential property. The "attractive nuisance" doctrine would not apply to public or commercial pools, like what Casey described as eligable.
That depends entirely on the jurisdiction. It can vary from state to state, but my state allows it for public pools as well and so do others. Public pool owners have been deemed liable even with a life guard on duty and even in cases where the child trespassed. Google is not Lexis nexis or west law or a legal search engine.
Furthermore, AR is a niche new field of law that has barely been explored. It could very well be a precedent setting case. I am just pointing the liability Niantic could face if an ambitious law firm chooses to tackle them.
Then that'd go back to anything beside a body of water. If "Attractive nuisance" covered a lot of stuff, we may as well shut down Pokemon Go, Ingress, and Wizards Unite.
Usually the city owns public pools in a community. So obviously if someone dies there its the city’s responsibility to make sure it cannot be accessed after hours. You are arguing a mute point. Niantic would have obviously looked at this prior to releasing this new ama. In other words stop trying to beat a dead horse. Live and let be
“Moot” and the several lawyers I know who specialize in this area say otherwise. The wayspot itself could be the attractive nuisance that induced the player to trespass and drown. The city/homeowners association or whatever can and will sue Niantic for placing a AR on top of their property without their express knowledge or permission (it’s just going to be another litigation circus like it was in 2016 suit).
But that’s a gamble Niantic is willing to take.
Its against guidelines for prp and if any city doesnt like a stop/poi on there property you can request to get it removed like it has always been done. Boom solved. You aren’t niantics lawyers and neither are your friends so stop trying to ruin perfectly fine poi’s with your against ama’s and criteria opinion 🤷♂️
The vast majority of submitted pools were the homeowners association, apartment complex, and clubhouse pool. None on prp. Even the new guidelines are so vaguely worded that several people in my local community only read “public pools” as eligible and are submitting every pool possible.
The actual city, homeowners association, etc would have no idea there is a pokestop/portal/inn there until someone is injured and sued them. First thing a decent lawyers’ investigator would do is check all cameras and the phone activity. They’d find out the person was playing pogo and as you say, Boom lawsuit.
The PoI location shouldn't be placed in the center of the pool anyway. The guidelines are pretty clear that for "areas" it's permissible and even encouraged to place the location wisely:
"Placemarkers for Large Areas
Larger areas like dog parks or sport fields make great Wayspots, but it is important to choose the right placement of the Wayspot that respects the activity it was designed to support. Instead of placing the Wayspot in the center of an open field, park, or other large area, place it at the entrance or where there is a visible sign or placemarker. That encourages you to approach the area to visit the Wayspot, without having to enter or interfere with the activities within."
Nominators have been pretty responsible about picking locations but I'd move or reject a nomination where the PoI was placed directly in the center of the pool. That's irresponsible and frankly inconvenient as well. For small apartment complex pools I'd say there's nothing wrong with putting it a gate.