New "Private residential property" definition



  • Hosette-INGHosette-ING Posts: 3,425 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @TWVer-ING writes;

    Anything not on prp is okay.

    We are still instructed to reject things if they might encourage people to go onto private property.

    Please be sure to closely review nominations whose real-world location appears to be within 40 meters of private, single-family residential property, and nominations whose real-world location appears to be in a neighborhood park. 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).

  • RedsoxMark-PGORedsoxMark-PGO Posts: 52 ✭✭✭

    My nomination was rejected. It seems reviewers don't believe me that this is a multi-family unit, or they don't understand the guidelines. Oh well.

  • WandHerring-PGOWandHerring-PGO Posts: 139 ✭✭✭✭

    @NianticCasey-ING This discussion has been going on for 150 posts with no sign of reaching an agreement. Would it be possible to have an official clarification with simple, unambiguous terms? What buildings/habitations the rule concern, where does it stops, when does a POI encourages people to trespass on private property? On the flip side, what are eligible POIs that are often mistakenly rejected by the average reviewer?

    I understand that Niantic wants to take a more hands-off approach with the new criteria and let the communities interpret them in a way that make sense to them locally, but this post shows there might be a need for clearer wording on this specific rule.

  • FrealafGB-PGOFrealafGB-PGO Posts: 354 ✭✭✭✭

    Was it rejected for PRP? Maybe try the multiple doorbell shot in support info next time (I remember you said you can't get that and the plaque into the same shot but maybe worth a try?) Those pictures usually help people who are sitting on the fence as to what the building is and if it's PRP

  • RedsoxMark-PGORedsoxMark-PGO Posts: 52 ✭✭✭

    I had 3 reasons given.

    1. Photo appears to include a recognizable license plate,
    2. The real-world location of the nomination appears to be on private residential property or farm,
    3. The real-world location of the nomination could not be confirmed to have an acceptable pedestrian pathway leading up to it.

    The first one is clearly wrong, as the wayspot photo is just of the plaque itself and a bit of the stonework on the building, no cars at all. Cars are in the supporting photo which should be allowed.

    The third one also baffles me, my supporting photo clearly shows a wide pavement/sidewalk leading to it. Except that I didn't include the plaque itself in it, I took it standing by the plaque.

    I think my strategy for my next attempt is to:

    1. Remove cars from the supporting photo (though that should not matter). Also I'll include the plaque itself in the supporting photo, to hopefully not get the pedestrian walkway rejections.
    2. Clearly state that the property is multi-family.

    If that doesn't work, I could replace the supporting photo with a photo of the doorbell. But as I can't get the plaque in the same shot, I have doubts that will help. It could be a photo of any doorway. The doorway is under the arch.

    For Pedestrian access, do you need to be able to touch the plaque? The sidewalk takes you where you can clearly see it, but you can't touch it. The only person who could touch it without a ladder would be the person in the flat with the window just above it. The purpose of a plaque is to look at it from the street, not to touch it.

  • FrealafGB-PGOFrealafGB-PGO Posts: 354 ✭✭✭✭

    Ah, yes, you do have to be able to touch things. It mentions this in training. I believe vertical distances is OK, so you don't have to be able to touch something that is really high up, as long as you can get to the wall underneath, but you should be able to stand right by something and touch it or directly above/below it. That would be the reason you got the pedestrian access rejection. Unfortunately that one probably won't work out.

  • Gazzas89-PGOGazzas89-PGO Posts: 2,596 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I was going to suggest the same. The biggest issue is basically

    Is the pavement prp.

    Would that be based on local laws (personally I believe it should)

    If it isn't, should we then consider if something would encourage people going on (for example, a post box is on the pavement and is public use, but one next to a garden that doesn't have a fence/wall would encourage people to go onto the prp)

  • TWVer-INGTWVer-ING Posts: 774 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Okay, we have two things here. A rule (nominations should be rejected if their real-world location might encourage people to go onto private property), and an example to clarify the rule (because the real-world location is at the end of a private driveway).

    What is a driveway? A driveway is like a road, but it is not a road. The difference between them is that a road can be used by the public, and a driveway can only be used by it's owner (and people who have certain easements rights on the driveway). A driveway is associated with a prp, but it can sometimes be a seperate entity from the prp. If it is a seperate entity, then it is not residential property. Notice the absence of the word residential in the rule. Yet entering the driveway would still be considered trespassing. Niantic doesn't want trespassing, so they add that sentence to their text.

    If a homeowner installs a little free library at the end of their driveway, the little free library would still be on their property, although that property might not be residential. For people to access it, they would have to trespass on their property. If a wayspot was placed there, it would encourage people to go onto the private (non-residential) property. And Niantic doesn't want that.

    That is what that sentence is saying. Area's only accessible by one single family are ineligible, whether they are residential or not. Not that people might be encouraged to climb over a 6 foot wall because there is a wayspot on the sidewalk.

  • 00Sterling-PGO00Sterling-PGO Posts: 20 ✭✭

    Wow. I read through the entirety of this convoluted post because I'm trying to get clearer understanding for fairly reviewing nominations. For me mostly because of the proliferation of little free libraries. I guess I consider who is likely responsible for the maintenance of said property up to the government owned street, open space or park. I also don't assume the submitter is the owner of the property adjacent to the nomination though it usually is. That property be taken up by a new owner who doesn't play. The owner may be okay with someone occasionally picking up or dropping off a book but not necessarily open to people parking in front of their house and dropping a lure. I know if somebody slips and falls on the public sidewalk in front of my house, I am legally liable as I am responsible for shoveling. I am responsible for mowing and maintaining shrubbery on the easement. I am seeing more angry language in submissions that kept getting rejected. Language more explicit and definitive from Niantic is much needed already.

Sign In or Register to comment.