I hope this is the right category for this question! I’m very frustrated that I’ve now had multiple valid wayspot nominations, such as gated apartment complex swimming pools and even non-gated gardens, rejected as Private Residential Property, clearly due to reviewers misunderstanding or not having read the criteria. I just used my last appeal recently on one of these, and now have just gotten another rejection on the same type of POI. It’s pretty disheartening and discouraging, as I put a lot of time and effort into these nominations, and I’m wondering if there’s any way to increase reviewer awareness that these types of POI are not on PRP?
1 Like
This is a very frustrating issue. Ever since the November 2020 AMA that said apartment pools are ineligible, reviewers trying to follow clarifications rejected them. The AMA was quietly removed from the Help menu, and (much later) this clarification was made here and then added there:
What I would do personally is resubmit any apartment pool that was rejected with a note in the supporting that includes the new stance. Possibly
Please note there has been an update to the policy on swimming pools, and apartment pools are no longer ineligible: Swimming Pools
For the other type of Wayspots, I would point out to the reviewer to check the tool tip under Appropriate to see that “Private property” refers to SFPRP and/or link to that clarification here: Private Residences, Farmland & K-12
Make sure to be matter-of-fact about it in your statement. This is the only way I know to get the word out to increase reviewer awareness.
As to “used my last appeal”, you get two appeals, each on a 20 day timer before you can use it again. If you have the nominations available, I resubmit before appealing anyway. If you have a specific nomination that you would like advice on resubmitting, feel free to post it here.
3 Likes
Hi Fiery.
Without seeing the nomination it is hard to really say. Why not put the nomination here for better feedback.
Some thoughts though. Remember that what works in one jurisdiction will not in another. What is considered by one community may not be considered by another. What do I mean?
Where I have lived and now live my apartment is considered by law to be a single dwelling private residence and that the land and access to it is 100% private even though shared with other apartments. That is different to how some countries may operate. On top of local, state and national law definitions each “grouping” of residences is subject to another level of rules that may (will) vary between buildings.
What I do with nominating and reviewing look for things to help a nomination - does it have public access at any time. For instance near me one complex opens up for 12 hours each day. The sculptures are fair game. Go at midnight not open. Go at lunch time open. Evidence of opening times and of the nominations always provided.
This is why Niantic clearly state that submissions are subject to the law, regulation, rules etc of the land the nomination is made. It’s in the terms of use we all accept. And it over rides the general “nomination and acceptance criteria”.
Not only that. But some communities of people have their own interpretations. So what passes muster in one place may not in another - Niantic has this whole thing of “the local community” deciding. Which can cause consternation. As that means what works in one suburb may not in another.
So, that said, I agree with what Cyndiepooh is saying. Just please remember that there are some reasons why people don’t go near them/or accept them that may not be obvious to us to the nominator.
Good luck 