It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.
Sign In with Ingress Sign In with Pokémon GO
Ignorant also means the unwillingness to learn. If someone puts something infront of you and you just don’t want to learn what a word means and disregard anything related to that. Thats called being “ignorant”. Not meant as an insult. Just basically saying keep an open mind to things and not shut them down because you dont feel like learning new things
I don't understand this debate at all. Niantic's stance seem pretty clear that they consider property to go so far and that we're to be extra careful when reviewing things another 40m from that property. They also state not to consider local laws when it come to private property.
I take all that and review as such: Can that be perceived as being directly on someone's private property? Yes = Reject. No = Next question. How close it this to someone's private property? More than 40m = review as stand-alone. Less than 40m = Next question. Can someone approach and walk all the way around this object (in theory) without stepping on someone's private property? No = reject. Yes = review as stand-alone.
During all this I'm using what I thought was Niantic's definition of private property: Singly-family residence and to the curb/street. And I'm to ignore all the local guidelines that may differ from that definition.
All this talk of "in my area, property ends here" seems unrelated as we're supposed to be using Niantic's definition of property, not our local's. So are we debating that Niantic never said such a definition?
Niantic's definition of single family private residential property is that anything on the property, or on the wall, fence, etc... is to be regarded as private residential property. This includes easements that are part of the property. Niantic have never said that it extends all the way to the street. This is made up by Wayfarers.
The confusion probably comes from people in the US and Canada mistakenly thinking that their property extends all the way to the street. They call the area between their property and the street their easement, but in reality it is public space that is not part of their property.
Furthermore, if PRP ended in the curb, there would be no reason to clarify that PoIs on an exterior wall are ineligible, as the whole wall should be considered to be well inside of the property unless the wall was built on the curb.
I think some local common sense is needed. Here is a specific example where I live (in the UK). Amongst other things, my city is known for these "Georgian Crescents" - 18th-century architecture. Here is an example of one.
Here terminology also gets confusing. Clearly this "structure" is not a single family house. It was built as 20 terraced "houses". Further confusion as over time, most (but not all) of the 20 "houses" have been sub-divided into multiple "flats" (apartments).
This is a place that I think deserves a Wayspot. The architect is famous, and specifically, a famous person lived most of their life at #20 (which has a plaque).
The sidewalk area (we call it the "pavement") is very public. The circled bench was installed by the city (there are several of them, only part of the Crescent is shown here). It is a place tourists visit to look at the architecture. There are also great views over the city from here.
Where do I put the Wayspot? If I choose the bench I don't think there should be PRP issues. but it will likely be rejected as a "generic bench". If I use the plaque on #20, it should pass the historical and cultural interest test, but it is on the building. Will the fact that #20 has several apartments let me use the plaque? Wlll the reviewers know or care how many families live in #20?
To me, common sense says that as the sidewalk area is public, with the city providing benches to sit on, using the plaque on the building should be OK. But per the guidelines, I'm not sure.
Last point... roughly half of the current Wayspots in my city are plaques on buildings like this. I know that doesn't set precedence.
If #20 is a multi family unit, then the nomination of the plaque is valid according to the guidelines.
That being said, situations like this one is why saying "sidewalks are PRP everywhere" is arrant nonsense.
Do you see the troubles with what you've typed there? You're saying they've defined property as property. You can't define something with its self. I can understand them adding the bit about easements, as too many people assume because they have access it's public. But again, it's just stating "on property" without actually defining where they consider property to end. Without them specifying their definition further, we're left to consider our local situations and laws. But they specifically state not to. Some in this thread are saying they're saying to only not consider local laws for easements, but easements are defined by where the property ends. Again, without a set definition of where that is, we're left to speculate.
Now here's where I'll throw out my example to "****" the situation further. Many people here are blanketly stating that in the US and Canada we do not own to the curb. That's just not true. It varies here too. In fact, here's my example: I do not own the sidewalk. My property ends at the sidewalk, however, I am responsible for maintaining the sidewalk (up to a point). My neighbor owns the sidewalk, as it's an easement through more of their property. The difference between our two lots is that the road curves and creates a corner in front of the neighbor's and the city decided that rather than have the sidewalk follow this awkward curve, it'll cut across it.
I could swear I saw a Niantic source for my "to the curb" rule. However, I cannot locate it, so I can't really continue to use it. And I can't use "to the sidewalk" as per my very local situation and many other places nearby that I know the property includes parts on the other side of a sidewalk.
Maybe the reason the "to the curb" rule is so stuck with me and others is that it's an easy rule to blanket cover all these situations because it eliminates the local debate of "who owns what". Maybe that's why they add the bit about not to consider local laws. All I know is that it appears Niantic is being vague on purpose, probably so their lawyers have leeway.
I don't know anyone that's saying "sidewalks are PRP everywhere". Clearly in the above example it's a multi-family structure and thus its sidewalk is private residence per Niantic.
No, I don't. There is no need for Niantic to define what a property is. A property already has a definition. No need to speculate. Should we also reject churches because Niantic has not defined what a church is?
Nobody is saying that there aren't rare examples where people own the land where the sidewalk is located. But those are exceptions, not the general rule. Not even common.
You, and many others, are probably experiencing some form of Mandela effect. Because so many people have claimed Niantic has said property extends to the street, many actually believe Niantic has said that. They are sure they saw Niantic say it somewhere, but they can't find evidence. Because it doesn't exist.
Yes, maybe Niantic is being vague on purpose. That's another reason to believe prp does not extend to the street. If that is how they wanted us to evaluate it, they could just flat out say so, without risk. But they don't.
Furthermore there are links in this very thread to other threads where Niantic has restored wayspots that are clearly between the street and a prp, despite many people "reminding" them that those wayspots are located on what is considered prp by those people.
No. Niantic states clearly that multi family apartment buildings are NOT personal residential property, and neither are their paved areas.
Here's the deal with PRP from edge of house to street in the United States. Anything that is in the road ROW should be considered temporary. This is because the cities do not permit objects in their ROW and will force homeowners to remove it and if the city doesn't have a ROW then the road is privately owned. The only things allowed are Mailboxes and other necessary and crashworthy objects. All LFL must be on the property line or be removed. One could make a case for murals on walls or survey monuments in sidewalks i suppose.
It safer to assume that building to roadway is all the same "property" reviewers aren't qualified to make determinations on where exactly the legal line is.
I don't know about others, but I am not talking about objects placed by the homeowner. I agree with you that those should be considered temporary if they are in the road allowance. I am talking about objects that are obviously not placed by the home owner. Information signs, trail markers, statues (not the ones you can buy in a store), etc.
Murals on walls are not allowed. Objects on walls of a prp are to be considered part of the prp and should be rejected.
If a wayspot candidate is obviously not placed by the home owner, and it is in an area that in 99,999% of the cases is public space, and there is no indication that this could be a 0.001% case where it isn't, I am not going to reject it "just in case". And Niantic hasn't told us to.
If #20 is subdivided into flats, the plaque is good to submit if it is on the wall of #20, because that means it isn't a single family private residence. I would try to take a support picture that shows multiple doorbells or letter boxes to help show its subdivided into flats. It sounds like a good candidate for a waypoint.
If they aren't subdivided and are just terraces then it isn't good to submit the plaque, as it's on the wall of a single family private residence.
The bench is on public property being on the pavement. However the bench is less likely to be eligible than the plaque, and if its just a plain bench it would probably be rejected.
If we agree, that the Wayfarer help section is providing us with the guidelines we should use, it might make sense to have a look at it. The only references to PRP I could find are the following:
Subsection Low Quality Nominations
Can you clarify the definition of “private residential property?” Are multi-family residences included in this rejection reason? What about Wayspots that are within 40m of a private residence?
Correct me, if I am wrong, but I wasn't able to find the blanket statement: The pavement/sidewalk in front of a private, single-family residential property should be considered PRP. In the screenshot that is floating around in this thread (perhaps someone could dig out the link), the following line appears that seems to be contentious: "If it is in an area, that is not associated with any private residential property, that should be okay". So is a sidewalk 'associated' (in the sense of being part of) with a PRP? Everywhere? Worldwide? Or is it merely 'adjacent' (not a part of)? I am open to some feedback but isn't the US + CAN situation with a sidewalk and no fence rather the exception? At least on a global scale? Hope I provided enough lols
If you look on the third page of this thread for my comment with a photo with naintic casey talking about easements and prp she explicitly states that
“reviewers should avoid trying to determine wether those locations are public or private based on local laws. If its an area not associated with any private residential property that should be ok”
so in my understanding if something is associated with a private property it should be rejected. Association being this trail marker is infront of what is considered prp. That poi would be associated with the prp and should not be submitted. Seems pretty simple but here we are
That screenshot is not part of the help section and it does not provide any explanation of the term local law, which renders it quite useless in a global context. Apparently, associated means in the vicinity. Seems to be a local linguistic law that reviewers should avoid trying to determine whether a location is private or public. You never stop learning...
An object that is in the road allowance/public space, that was placed there by someone else than a neighbouring homeowner (for example the council or the tourist office), is not associated with a private residential property in any way. Being near something does not necessarily mean they are associated.
Depends on how you interpret the word associated. Yes the thing the city put somewhere close to someone private property isnt associated by ownership, but in my eyes it is still associated with that specific property if it is right in front or around it. Difference of opinion and different ways of looking at something. It’ll be up in the air until something concrete comes from niantic if it ever does
Thanks. #20 is divided into flats, there are multiple doorbells. It is hard for me to show that as the entrance is around the corner. I can photograph the doorbells but then the photo would not include the plaque or the surrounding pavement. I wish I could add multiple supporting photos. Anyway, I'll try.
I also feel that the distinction of multiple vs single residence seems somewhat arbitrary. But if that is the guideline I'll work with it.
Try a normal supporting photo then and see how it goes. If you get the "private residential" rejection then next time try the picture of the bells maybe? It's a hard one if you can't get both in shot. Multiple pictures would indeed be a good thing in this case!
Consolidated Help references to single family residences:
(EDIT: Well the old Wayfarer links don't work anymore, but here is what they said. The links at the bottom still work.)
From https://wayfarer.nianticlabs.com/help#niantic-wayfarer-clarifications-january-2020 :
From https://wayfarer.nianticlabs.com/help#potentially-confusing-nominations :
From https://wayfarer.nianticlabs.com/help#help-criteria :
1, 2, and 3 have all been superseded by the criteria update and all but one of your links to the Wayfarer website have been removed.
This thread repeatedly asked exactly what Niantic has said in the past. I had stuff saved off.
Also, Niantic has said that the new criteria do not replace the old.
It was repeatedly asked in this thread, when did Niantic EVER say PRP extends to the sidewalk/right-of-way.
And Niantic has said the new criteria is to summarize and simplify what they want, not to replace older notes.
Direct quote from the release notes:
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.
Yes, those where for a very limited subset of wayspot candidates. And there was lots of confusion about it at the time. If I'm not mistaking, clarifications were asked in the very next ama, and those statements were thrown out of the window. Sadly, old Wayfarer AMA's are way harder to find than old Ingress AMA's.
That "rule" would create lots of problems. Almost everything in inhabited area's is within 40m of prp. It would also make it so that "common area's" in apartment complexes also become invalid, as every apartment inside an apartment complex, is also single family private residential property. Meaning that large area's in cities would become off limits.
Also, those statements say nothing about prp extending all the way to the street.
Also, they explicitely talked about the 40m rule in the November AMA:
So I think it's safe to say any statement that says to reject something within 40m, is overruled by this more recent statement.
”or might encourage people to go onto private property (for example, because the real-world location is at the end of a private driveway).” I would say this is one of the more important lines. So its at the end of someones driveway but not exactly on there property. Will the poi possibly encourage someone to go on there property or not is the question. More than not if its pokemon go and there are spawns there people may want to go get those spawns especially if they are rare. If that means going onto property it may happen. That is why that is written. So yes its not on property but if its around/close to that property it may encourage people to go on it
I actually agree on this. Having a wall or tall fence on the property limit that would prevent people from casually entering into the property makes a lot of a difference when evaluating a PoI near PRP. Without them I would reject the PoI.