Private residential property without public access
Badluckfairies-ING
Posts: 16 ✭✭
Title of the Wayspot: Congreaves Hall
Location: 52.462033,-2.070811
City: Cradley Heath
Country: UK
Screenshot of the Rejection Email:
Photos to support your claim:
Additional information: Google maps is not up to date. These photos show that Congreaves Hall is not publicly accessible and that it is Private Residential property. As shown by gates, locks, buzzer entry, and the realty signs. The hall/wayspot is beyond these gates up a private drive. Also, there is a warning sign on the gates.
Post edited by Badluckfairies-ING on
Tagged:
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
This looks to be convenient into as set of apartments. Not that there are multiple buttons on the call panel and the sign notes an apartment number for the location. This would not fall under private residential property as that only applies to single family homes. Restricted access is also not part of the removal criteria and those living in the apartment building are still part of the public.
So I'd be ok to climb over the fence into private property to access that portal?
You don't have to access every waypoint.
No, but it's not like it's just too far or somewhere like an attraction I have to pay entry for, or even up a hill, it's someone's home.
If it wasn't a wayspot and I submitted it, it would get rejected.
Restricted/ limited access is not a reason for removal nor rejection
But it has to be publically accessible. That isn't. Not without trespassing on someone's home. (And one of the rejection criteria is No pedestrian access, and there's no pedestrian right of way beyond those gates).
The gate itself is also a waypoint, but that's fine because it's not someone's home and is publically accessible.
En ingress si es necesario acceder a todos los Wayspot porque deben ser derribados por la facción contraría. Su criterio de evaluación es solo válido específicamente para Pokémon. Recuerda que NIA tiene 3 juegos @Roli112-PGO y toda votación afecta a todos los juegos.
En ingress @BadApple13-PGO es muy importante tener acceso libre a los Wayspot así no se produce ventajas por no acceder a los portales.
Didn't Niantic release an updated criteria in 2020 that said that any previous AMA was superceded by that? Have you got it in the 2020 update?
So, if I submit something in a gated neighborhood with a few homes. Even if it says "warning" on it, then I can submit it because a few people live there?
I also want to clarify the difference between a house and an apartment, people still live there and they're still the public. If someone submits something on their garden that's only accessible to them and their visitors, that's fine?
Genuinely interested.
Genuinely thought they'd disallowed homes of any sort themselves being waypoints because they got sued.
This is how I understood it too.
@Badluckfairies-ING claramente los evaluadores de Pokémon siempre quiten tener el Wayspot en sus cómodos sofás.
Incitan a qué los jugadores de ingress tengamos que saltar rejas para acceder a esos homeportals y derribarlos una lastima
Single family homes are prohibited, but things in the common areas of apartments are perfectly allowed. Publicly accessible does not mean that everybody has to have access. If residents at the apartments can access the Wayspot, then that is sufficient to meet the publicly accessible requirements.
Did you by any chance read the AMA aswers posted after the change in criteria? They specifically addressed these questions.
To quote:
Q: 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?
A: The considerations when looking at private residential property have not changed with the criteria refresh. Considering that multi-family residences like apartment complexes can have publicly accessible amenities (like playground equipment), these could still be eligible as long as they meet all of the acceptance criteria. Nominations that appear to be within 40m of private, single-family residential property should be very closely reviewed to make sure they are not on private residential property, and that they are accessible from locations not on private residential property.
Q: How does “publicly accessible” apply to locations that have limited access, like members-only clubs, gated communities, time-restricted areas?
A: Just like with the definition of private residential property, this guideline hasn’t changed. These locations would still be eligible, including restricted areas on the grounds of a company’s headquarters or behind locked gates so long as there wouldn’t be objections to you entering the area and the location is accessible to some folks. We do not expect all players to have access to all locations but we strongly recommend following real-world rules while attempting to access locations.
They made it completely clear that nothing changed regarding the eligibility of nominations with restricted access.
Stop pushing this on Pokémon Go players. This rule predates Wayfarer and the inclusion of Pokémon Go players as reviewers by a lot. Restricted access is not grounds for rejection or removal. Deal with it.
@Badluckfairies-ING dont pay attention, PGO do not understand what are links fields and kays. one more one less pokestop is ok for them.
i will say one thing: if one fraction have 3 non accessible to other fraction spots on the border of the city in different positions - then ING is dead in this city.
The things @Roli112-PGO and I quoted are official Niantic communications regarding the actual criteria we're discussing. Dismissing our arguments (which, again, are quotes from clarifications) just because our usernames have PGO in them is both mind-numbingly stupid and infuriatingly elitist. Address our arguments instead of our usernames.
@Nadiwereb-PGO i know the official position and i disagree with it. and i fully understand the emotions of ING players, when other fraction just have this kind of advantage. i will always be on the side "the spot should be accessible for everyone" more we talk about it more chances it will be changed somewhen.
Your subjective opinion is not a reason to spread misinformation on these forums.
Let me echo Niantic's old comments whenever someone complained about a "strategic portal" that was located in restricted areas. See this as a opportunity to make new friends and introduce them to the game.
Do you need me to switch over to ING so you will listen? I play both games, ING moreso than Go now due to burnout. Doesn't disqualify anything anyone is said as this is actual word from Niantic and a reality even before PGO got Wayfarer access.
Esto no tiene que ver con Ingress o PoGo. La regla existe desde antes que Pogo tuviera acceso a Wayfarer. Aveces son estrategias de Ingress solamente. Echándole culpa a jugadores de un juego no es justo. Si tienes que "saltar rejas" para derribar, quiere decir que otro agente de Ingress tuvo acceso en primer lugar.
This is talking about amenities inside the apartment complex, such as playgrounds (and as I interpret it, things like artwork on the side of the building), this is of the apartment building itself. Does this mean I could submit my apartment building?
I'm trying to unpack Niantics logic that for example, a piece of art or an old black post box on a wall facing the street = not ok because of PRP, but an actual apartment building (not an amenity, but the building) far behind gates = no problem.
Members only clubs, time restricted areas etc can be accessed some of the time, but someone elses home is different (again, not an amenity, but the actual building). And based on that, if I asked residents if I could come and use the wayspot inside their gate and they objected, does that mean it needs to be removed because they do object to access? (And if they don't object, it stays?) Because it says no one would object "and" the location is accessible to some folks.
I have never before seen something that is permanently inaccessible to almost everyone. I've only ever seen timed restricted entry before, which is why this was submitted for removal.
PRP is defined as Private Residential Property (single family home), because this is a multi family location (apartment) its not included in the PRP rules. As mentioned before restricted access to a location is not a determining factor, as long as the location is accessible by at least 1 person its allowed. Even if you are denied access doesnt change it being allowed to exist.
The owner of the property would be allowed to request removal.
Generally speaking an apartment building would not be eligible, however once somethings already approved to remove it would require it to meet a removal requirement such as not existing anymore, or being on PRP.
The removal criteria is very specific in what Wayspots are involved and subject to removal. We gave already established that an apartment building does not fall under private residential property, and there are no removal criterion for limited or restricted access. This Wayspot does not meet any of the criteria for removal.
If it needs to be accessible by one person, then why is there even a difference between a single house and some apartments? (This inconsistency is what I'm trying to point out). If only one person lived there, then by the one person logic it's still fine (which seems contradictory on Niantics part). I'm trying to understand why Niantic take this position when the requirement is one person.
It also doesn't make sense that something ineligible to be accepted is allowed to stay in if it's either historical or came through in error.
Though the waypoint in question existed previously as an old house you could visit, it doesn't exist as that now, and was converted into residential.
Then please answer the examples I've given challenging that.
An apartment or gated community is still a community of different families. A single family home is not a community.
I also take it by the original name the it was one a college building that was converted into apartments. It was never a private home of a single family.
Because there was a law suit that spelled out single family residential.
The POI itself still exists, so there is no grounds for removal.
Entonces debo cambiar mi profesión para trabajar en una Minera a 5000 metros sobre el nivel del mar para solo hacer amigos del dueño y que me autorizaron para entrar a sus instalaciones?