Just wondering if removal criteria has changed internally without being relayed to to the public?
I am genuinely confused after seeing recent topics on this forum where a way spot that is on single family private residential property was removed, reinstated, and an appeal to remove again was denied by @NianticAaron stating that “this Wayspot doesn’t meet our requirements for removal.”
Evidence based on an official government zoning map of the location indicated that it is indeed zoned as residential.
I double checked the in game report feature. It still has an option to report a way spot on private residential property.
Additionally I checked the Niantic Helpshift article on requesting modification or removal of a way spot. It too indicates that private residential property is valid criteria for removal. And even goes further by stating “appears to be within 40 meters of private residential property." Not just is. But appears to be within 40 meters.
So to reiterate, I am confused as to whether private residential property is still valid removal criteria. And if so, why does Niantic staff insist on not removing the way spot that “appears to be within 40 meters of private residential property" given the evidence of an official government zoning map?
The “within 40 meters of [SFPRP]” clause is a strange condition that appears to be rarely applied. If applied strictly, it would lead to most UK wayspots being removed, leaving just the ones in countryside and a scattering in cities. 40 meters is roughly twice the depth of an average SFPRP plot.
There are specifics around Single Family Private Residential Property (SFPRP).
Discussions in this forum have always focussed on the boundary both in terms of review and questions over shoukd I request removal.
My understanding is the 40m radius is about the property owner and the distance from their property to a wayspot.
It would cause enormous problems in the U.K. if people other than property owners could request removal of a wayspot within 40m of SFPRP.
The distance is something to consider at the point of review and we are asked to assess if it’s a suitable location.
Our removal policies, like any other policies and criteria are dynamic and may change based on requirements. However, there have been no change in our stance on Private Residential Properties.
This Wayspot, per our research, is not located on the property of the private residence next to it. The boundary wall is common property of the neighborhood.
We need a request from the property owner to make any further adjustments to this Wayspot.
I do wonder if it has something to do with the zoning here. It’s RES3, also known as R3, which in some places is actually used for multi-family and not single family. It says residential lots here, but with that said, it doesn’t appear to be zoned as some from of R1, which is typically used for SFPRP.
So, unless the city changes the zoning of this area, the Wayspot will stay and the property owner will have to request removal.
I didn’t want to post on the appeal thread, but rather here to explain why it may have not been removed. I also looked up US zoning codes, as I usually don’t see R3 for what looks like SFPRP on a regular map or Street View, and did find some info that may be helpful in the future.
That’s interesting and a good piece of research. It’s also a little bit worrying if this is what Niantic relied on, as a good understanding of the zones shows that R3 does not mean exclusively multi-family buildings. Strictly, it means plots on which multiple residences can exist, which can include townhouses. My understanding (admittedly from the UK) is that a townhouse is a single-family private residential property.
“R3 zoning is intended for multi-family housing, such as apartment buildings or townhouses” does not mean that every building is for multiple families. Other government websites confirm this.
If the zoning rule is what Niantic used, that’s a concerning misunderstanding, so I actually hope it isn’t.
The thing is, from Street View, this appears to be SFPRP, but the zoning isn’t for SFPRP; it’s just zoned as residential and possibly still zoned for multi-family. And depending on the zoning laws of the area, they may not need to be changed.
So yes, while this looks like it could be an issue in the future, it does seem as if staff is following how this area is lawfully zoned.
The the key term here is “assessing,” meaning that the local government may allow for SFPRP, but the law is also allowing for multi-family due to the R3/RES3 zoning. From Google:
Assessing the use description for SFR (Single-Family Residence) involves checking if a property fits zoning for one household (detached or not), evaluating its investment potential (location, job market, schools), and understanding its functional use (rentals, personal home) versus other property types, ensuring it aligns with owner/investor goals and legal limits on subdivision or commercial use. For investments, it means analyzing location, property condition, potential rental income, and renovation costs against market value (ARV).
Assessing Use Description SFR does not denote how the land is zoned.
I clicked on the link, and I’m getting R3. I’m not seeing that the zoning is R1 anywhere from the link, even from the report. Yes, it does say in some places that it’s single family, but the zoning doesn’t.
It’d be better to include the full link to the PDF. It may also be that the county hasn’t fully updated the boundary map info to reflect this R1 zoning, which is possible.
Basically, there is conflicting info. The map site says one thing, but the legal document of assessment says another.
That’s the PDF that shows this plot is R1. I didn’t want to overload with long links so was trying to provide directions to the page
This document does confirm what @Gendgi said - single-family private residential property which includes the neighbourhood sign. This alone should be enough to get the wayspot removed without any regard to what it is and whether neighbourhood signs are eligible.
That a map shows the area as R3 does not override the detail for this property.
I posted the link to the document in the appeal for review. I think it’s a bit hard to find, and again, the map site is giving conflicting info. Some may not know how to pull up the full property report, or even locate the assessment info.
And I don’t think the links are overload when they may be helpful.
I see you did that. I hope it gets a response from Niantic.
The thing about the conflicting info - the map site saying R3 - is that it isn’t necessarily conflicting. R3 means a plot on which multiple units can exist, but those units can still be SFPRP. An R3 designation does not automatically mark the entire plot as “not SFPRP”.
