- Wayspot Title: Amit Photographer
- Location (lat/lon): Approximately 34.16556366268017, -118.37210456321645
- City: Los Angeles, CA
- Country: USA
- Screenshot of the Rejection Email (do not include your personal information):
- Additional Information (if any):
According to Google Maps, Amit Photography / Amit Photographer is located at 11049 Magnolia Blvd #306, North Hollywood, CA 91601:
Los Angeles County Assessor Portal says that it’s a commercial building with residential combination:
I guess that’s fancy way of saying it’s a residential building with some businesses on the first floor:
Notice the Living at NoHo part - it’s LIVING, not WORKING. You can look at their floor plans here and click on available units to see the layout. Those units are apartments, not offices.
So basically this Amit guy (I assume that’s his name) created a company called Amit Photography and registered it at his home address. Most likely for tax and liability purposes, and yes, it’s totally legal to do this. That doesn’t make his apartment a business, though, and individual apartments are SFPRPs, so please remove this Power Spot. Keep in mind that it’s also perfectly legal and relatively easy to open a company that won’t be doing anything and register it at a residential address, and I don’t think we want wayspots and other game spots located at someone’s home which is also a business called “I Just Wanted A Wayspot At Home Inc.”
Power Spots aren’t on the Spatial/Lightship map, so I don’t think they can be applied here (see image below).
Power Spots also do not follow the same criteria as Wayspots, and businesses in apartment buildings do appear to be acceptable for Power Spots, just not single family properties, which this isn’t; it’s multi-family.
1 Like
And yet there is some process to sort out Power Spots that are allowed from those that are not:
And to add to that, you can report Power Spots in the same way you can report regular wayspots, with the same options.
Yes, but the criteria is not the same as Wayspots, and just based off of Wayspot crtieria, this doesn’t meet removal criteria.
We haven’t fully been told as to what is the criteria for and against Power Spots, but anything at an apartment building seems to meet Power Spot criteria. I have even tried to get some apartment building Power Spots moved from the middle of the building to the front entrance, but they’ve all be rejected.
It seems unlikely that this Power Spot will be removed. Keep in mind that Power Spots are transient, so they come and go from PoGo, which could be another reason why the criteria isn’t the same as Wayspots, but this hasn’t been confirmed.
You may want to see if you can get it removed via the removal link with PoGo:
There’s still no guarantee that the Power Spot will be removed, but some have used this link with Power Spots they believe are ineligible.
First of all, PoGo has a built-in system to report Power Spot issues, with the same list of removal reasons as when reporting invalid portals or Pokestops.
Second, I already was able to remove two Power Spots for locations that no longer exist in real life, thru that system.
I reported this Power Spot thru that same system, but this time I got a rejection. Same as with wayspot appeals, I created a Power Spot appeal. If I am doing something wrong, I am sure I’ll hear from Niantic very soon. I know about the other system to remove wayspots from PRPs that you mentioned.
Also, maybe PSs that you’ve seen just go, but those I’ve seen only rotate. Several businesses around me become PSs for a few days, then stop being PSs for a few days, then become PSs for a few days again.
And what do you mean it doesn’t meet wayspot removal criteria? It’s an apartment, which is a PRP.
Yeah, this is different than this. I’ve also gotten non-existing Power Spots removed pretty easily. I mention a Burger King that was torn down that I was able to get removed in the Power Spots clarification thread a few times.
It’s an apartment building it’s located at, and we don’t know exactly which apartment it’s pointing to. Therefore, we can’t say for sure that the Power Spot is causing issues. It may also be accessible from several units within the building.
Also, many Wayspots inside apartment buildings can be accessed from an area outside of the living units, such as fitness centers, pools, game rooms, art, etc. They may be pinned right over a unit, but the location where it can be accessed isn’t restricted to those just living in that 1 unit. Therefore, it’s not PRP, which is a building that only 1 family, regardless of the size, lives in, hence why we say single family PRP, SFPRP, not buildings that are multi-family.
1 Like
We do - it’s #306, as I mentioned in the appeal.
Everything else is irrelevant. I was recently reminded about the lawsuit Niantic had to go thru, which resulted in a settlement and in taking a closer look at wayspots located within 40 meters of a PRP. This PS is not within 40 meters of PRP. It is right at the border between the apartment and the rest of the apartment building, at least that’s where it’s supposed to be because the rest of the building is not part of this business, and assuming we have to be able to touch PSs like wayspots, players will have to touch the apartment’s door. And if you think that apartments are not PRPs, then take another look at this (you even replied in that thread, and I was thinking if I should let you know I’ve seen buildings similar to that one here in Los Angeles). Yeah, I know that Niantic is consistently inconsistent, but not considering apartments as PRPs will open a floodgate of people submitting things from their apartments, and they won’t even have to pretend their apartments are a place of business.
Power Spots cannot be submitted, unless they are unused Wayspots. Besides, a photography business would most likely be seen as a generic business, and wouldn’t be eligible for a Wayspot.
And the lawsuit you you mentioned is for historical single family PRP, which you continue to overlook. Apartment buildings are multi-family, not SFPRP. That thread also dealt with a mass produced decoration at an apartment building, again not SFPRP.
I don’t think you fully read my comment there, as it’s a very typical apartment building in many parts of Japan, but the frog statue isn’t unique, so the appeals team actually gave an incorrect rejection reason, which isn’t all that unusual. In the end, it wouldn’t be worth trying to resubmit since the statue can easily be purchased online and most likely is mass produced. I added that to give the OP more ciontext as to why it isn’t eligible in the first place; the lawsuit mention really wasn’t needed in that case when you dig deeper, like I did.
I will be muting this thread, as I just don’t know if you’re fully understanding everything, and there’s no need to keep going in circles for me.
Judging from your non sequiturs that completely ignore everything I said and instead talk about something not related, I am pretty sure you don’t understand anything I am saying. Unless you are replying about that other thread in this thread for some unknown reason.
Thanks for the appeal, @Itsutsume We took another look at the Wayspot in question and decided that it does not meet our criteria for removal at this time.
