Appealing the Removal of a Waystop/Pokestop

Wayspot Appeals
1

When submitting a Wayspot Appeal, make sure to include as much of the following information as possible:

  • Wayspot Title:
  • Location (lat/lon):
  • City: Los Angeles
  • Country: USA
  • Additional Information (if any):

This waystop/pokestop was improperly removed from this location (or nearby—I can’t remember the exact coordinates but I am including the coordinates for the real-life structure). I’m not sure why it was removed because it is an eligible wayspot.

It has been stated by Niantic that Little Free Libraries on municipal land are eligible wayspots. This is a registered LFL. It is safely accessed from the public sidewalk. It is NOT located on PRP.

In Los Angeles, the strip of land between the sidewalk and the street curb (called a “parkway”) is municipal property. Homeowners who live adjacent to a parkway are not allowed to cut down the trees on the parkway, fence it off, plant vegetation and trees that don’t appear on the city’s approved list, or prevent the public from using the parkway. The city is responsible for trimming the trees on the parkway and dealing with pests (like beehives and raccoons) on the parkway and must also address any safety concerns on the parkway. See this linked document where the city imposes regulations regarding its parkways:

The language the city uses makes it clear that this land is not considered part of the nearby homeowner’s land:

“VII. Enforcement: When parkway areas are found to be out of compliance with the various codes and ordinances, and/or the parkway improvements are not properly permitted, the City will employ a progressive enforcement process to ensure the improvements are either properly permitted or returned to a condition that complies with said codes and ordinances.

The enforcement process initially begins with verbal and/or written notifications to the abutting property owner or occupant in an attempt to voluntarily achieve proper compliance. Further enforcement activities may include citations, fines, and public hearings before the Board of Public Works; enforcement actions may also include mechanical liens against the title of the property. In cases where the parkway improvements are deemed a nuisance or safetyhazard to the public, the City reserves the right to remove the offending improvements and restore the parkway area using City forces. The abutting property owner is responsible for the reimbursement of all costs incurred by the City to properly restore parkway areas fronting his/her property.”

You can see that the parkway “fronts” and “abuts” private property but it is not private property itself; it is shared public land that may not be impeded by nearby homeowners (and if it is, they are fined).

Lastly, when you look up the home lots in this area, they clearly do not extend to include the parkway, nor is the parkway included in the survey of the lot size.

In summary, this LFL is not on private residential property. It is on shared use municipal land. According to city law, a homeowner nearby may not prevent access to this area. Please restore the stop.

IMG_9230
IMG_92301179×2556 375 KB

IMG_9226
IMG_9226384×512 102 KB

IMG_9228
IMG_92281179×2556 366 KB

2

A few weeks ago when i went through a bunch of old rejected title edits and appealed them, I appealed a large number of “Little Free Library” wayspots. Every single one that was within a similar grass strip between sidewalk and street was approved, but all the ones that were “inside” the sidewalk the team retired rather than renaming.

This seems like pretty clear evidence of what the criteria is at this point so this particular wayspot should be restored. Ideally the team would be more transparent about that rule as all we have is a history of somewhat controversial forum comments about where exactly the PRP line falls.

3 Likes
3

I also want clarification on this, but I am on the other side of the issue. I reject LFL’s in front of single family private residential property.

1 Like
4

@cyndiepooh I reject them if they are on a lawn or on the house-side of the sidewalk. But I approve them on the strip of grass between the sidewalk and the street (in my neighborhood I know it’s municipal land) based on some of the guidance I’ve seen in the old and new forums (I’ve included screenshots above and see the comment above by @tehstone ). I’m excited to finally get clarity on this issue as well.

1 Like
5

I’m with you on this one, but given Niantic’s response to similar situations on here and @tehstone’s experiences it seems like they are ok with LFL’s on the road side of the sidewalk, but not on the property side of the sidewalk. So I’m not sure what to do at this point.

This seems like an easy thing for them to add to the criteria clarifications post though…

1 Like
6

@cyndiepooh If this was over here it would be public land no matter what side it was on. The property boundary is just that. If it is outside a wall, fence, mearing etc it is publicly accessible land.

Once it is not on their front lawn/driveway then it wouldn’t be an issue here. As for the property owner maintaining the grass, that is there own choice. Most councils here wouldn’t have an issue with it. Some rather to do it themselves.

I guess it depends on the local laws in the applicable country but over here the entirety from the roadside kerb to the actual boundary of the property would be publicly accessible.

May not be the case with the above mentioned but just to give you an insight in case you are reviewing these in Ireland.

@26thDoctor I’m guessing it would be typically the same where you are?

1 Like
7

In England we only own the bit the house is sat on, up to the pavement or boundary fence etc. We don’t own pavements or verges. I’m sure there are a few odd exceptions but not many.

The pavement, verge and road would be public property. Sometimes there are “private roads” but those would be jointly owned by residents who would organise maintenance together. It doesn’t mean single family private property, it just means owned by the residents of the road, not the council.

As an example, I have been trying to establish a wildflower meadow on a strip of grass verge in my road. It is in the same kind of location as this waypoint- grass verge between the pavement and the road. If that was my land, I would be able to do what I want, but it’s the council’s land, and they keep showing up to mow it at inconsistent intervals, despite being asked by several residents not to. Shows how much “ownership” we have - 0. A little library here would be on council land. We would probably require permission to put one there and if we did it would be on public property.

Laws vary.

1 Like
8

This Wayspot was located over 70 meters away from the correct location of the object. The Wayspot was also located on the property of a single family home. This is why it was removed.

I have restored the Wayspot and moved it to its correct location.

1 Like
9

They restored the stop, so that clarifies that an LFL on municipal property across the sidewalk from a single family home is an eligible Wayspot.

10

ty for the tag. i think this is a terrible decision but will skip any future strip lfl’s instead of rejecting.

now what is the rule for places like where i live where there is no sidewalk? the town owns right of way in front of all the homes. does the town having right of way mean that it is okay to put an lfl there and submit it as a wayspot?

2 Likes
11

I agree that if it is in front of someone’s house in a typical US neighborhood, it should be rejected. Most people have no idea about where their actual property line ends and the city begins…most people have no reason to care. But effectively, I think most people ‘consider’ that as their property. They are fully responsible for taking care of it every where I’ve ever lived in the US (and Kenya for that matter). The city sure isn’t going to come mow or landscape for you!

If people would be bothered by a group standing on the side walk to do a Pogo raid at a gym placed on one side of the sidewalk, they would be equally as miffed about them standing in the same place if the gym was placed on the opposite side of the sidewalk.

1 Like
12

They do in the UK, so these things vary. Sounds like they vary in the US too with different laws in different cities, based on the outcome here.

1 Like
13

Yes, the laws on property lines do vary from state of state and even within states between municipalities, but the responsibility for taking care of that part of the property – I don’t think that varies at all. I’ve never ever been anywhere (in the US) where the homeowner is not responsible for taking care of that little strip of land. And I have lived in a lot of places in the US (and other countries too :blush:).

1 Like
14

In fact, in the US, in many states, it’s the homeowners responsibility to maintain and repair the sidewalk, whether the property is owned by the homeowner or not.

1 Like
15

@Leedle95 You might be responsible for mowing the parkway if you don’t like an unkempt patch of grass in front of your home. But you don’t have the right to tell someone they cannot stand on that area. Even if it bothers you.

16

I wouldn’t say people have no clue where the boundaries lie. In the municipality I live in homeowners are only allowed fencing and driveway curbs up to a specific point. If you pave your driveway, the municipality can rip up the part near the road belonging to them if needed and then replace with asphalt rather than whatever you initially had. When they did work on my street they dug up the street and the part in front of the houses that is owned by the municipality when doing water mains and then replaced as they saw fit. If you want to put anything on the easement you need to put in a request to the municipality.
Here I notice LFLs are popping up all over the place on PRP but typically when that place has a fence or shrub fencing separating it from the “the easement”. It is not often to have sidewalks in smaller municipalities and even less to see a sidewalk separating the easement.
I personally don’t police the LFLs on the easements as I am already getting enough backlash for removing ineligible wayspots that are no longer there, unsafe, or on school grounds. As well as moving some to their actual location. Although I have put a few that are farther up on the actual PRP.

1 Like
17

Didn’t say All homeowners have no clue. Said most don’t because they have no need to.

18

I know Niantic hates blanket rules, but the rule should be no Wayspots in front of single family private residential homes. I can’t believe that they allow these. Even if the family who put out the Little Free Library doesn’t mind the extra traffic from players, it impacts the other neighbors.

2 Likes
19

@LozaraGO You can actually be cited by the city for not taking care of it. It’s not just a nicety. And of course you can’t make a person leave, though I am sure the police would respond and make people move along if requested.

The conversation is getting to the absurd though. Why would you propose potentially annoying a family/homeowner? One more Pokestop or portal just isn’t worth not being respectful of neighbors and their space. I can only suspect those arguing so hard want their own stop in their yard???

3 Likes
20

@Leedle95 Because my neighbors and I want the stop. We play together. We have a neighborhood discord, and we spoke about it when the stop disappeared. It’s frustrating that random people had our stop removed when it abides by all of niantic’s rules. And niantic gave it back to us! They’ve ruled on our appeal and stated that the stop is eligible. So I agree. The conversation is moot and I would love to move on.

1 Like