When submitting a Wayspot Appeal, make sure to include as much of the following information as possible:
Wayspot Title: Phil’s Library
Location (lat/lon): 38.017185, -84.515620
City: Lexington, KY
Country: USA
Screenshot of the Rejection Email (do not include your personal information):
Additional Information (if any): LFL on SFPRP -
Doesn’t this one depend on the specifics of the locality? How the sidewalk and land between the sidewalk and the street are titled varies extensively from place to place.
Yes… from talking to a US federal agent… I was told that for law enforcement purposes, a property ends at the away from street edge of sidewalk. That’s the line they use for restraining orders, to charge trespassing, etc. (I know someone who had a zero distance restraining order, because of an abusive neighbor. Both parties were specifically told that he was not allowed on her property but was allowed on the sidewalk.)
In some localities the property deeds/surveys say the ownership goes to the curb, but that extended area is legally restricted as to what the property owner can do with it… i.e. you can landscape it, but not have someone trespassed. A lot of LFLs (like this one) are placed in that area.
There’s a strong cultural difference, as well, in the US, between places that have sidewalks in residential areas, and places that do not. Many places in the US choose not to have sidewalks because they have extreme views about private property. That’s true to the extent that having sidewalks (and choosing to live somewhere that has sidewalks) is a very strong statement in support of community, and in particular, of communal use of land.
It’s an explicit endorsement of public right of ways. Because, independent of any other definition of the sidewalk and the land between the sidewalk and the street, it is a public right of way.
In areas that have green areas between the sidewalk and the street, that green strip is the precursor of linear parks.
I’m all for turning down /removing LFL when they are on the house side of the sidewalk (or on the boundary) or even on the sidewalk itself, but when they are in the street side, I want to know more.
There’s also an interesting question coming down the pike. Several cities in the San Francisco Bay Area now allow A(ccessory) D(welling) U(nits) to be sold independently of the, um, primary dwelling unit. That renders any house in those cities (one of which is mine, Oakland) that has an ADU effectively a duplex. A LFL on that property is not on SFPRP. The person nominating the LFL will need to provide the info showing the ADU.
The ADU law is spreading across California. We’ll need to take it into account when reviewing nominations and appeals.
Yeah, I’ve been wondering about that. I actually have a house with an ADU in my grid (and within range of my house, literally the next cell), they also have a fountain in an unfenced front yard. Does the ADU make the fountain eligible?
I’m in the suburbs in San Diego County. Allowing POIs on former SFR properties because of an ADU would honestly be a game changer in developing California suburbs (and maybe elsewhere as well). I don’t think the ability to sell matters, if anything it’s actually a negative; they were built as rentals, which makes it a second family residence on the same property.
For now I’ll stick to my strategy of finding apartment swimming pools on Google Earth.
Thanks for the appeal @rawwrs. We looked at this Wayspot again and decided not to retire it at this time.
I absolutely hate this. It is in front of the homeowner’s property and should not be a Wayspot. Does every homeowner have to sue to get rid of these?
I guess the street corner experiment has shown that Niantic is no longer concerned about bothering homeowners, too.
This assessment couldn’t have been more incorrect. There has been absolutely no change to our policy since the start.
What did I say that was incorrect? There used to be guidance to carefully check within 40m: “Please be sure to closely review nominations whose real-world location appears to be within 40 meters of private, single-family residential property, … To be clear, nominations should be rejected if their real-world location appears to be on private, single-family residential property or might encourage people to go onto private property (e.g., because the real-world location is at the end of a private driveway).” The being concerned about encouraging trespassing is the part that appears to no longer be an issue for staff. I phrased that “bothering homeowners.”
Let’s remember that hallucinating is inherent to the functioning of LLMs, and therefore any tech built on LLMs. No hallucinating, no LLM. Citing an AI is worse than meaningless, however, because you are participating in asset reallocation from individuals to corporations on an unprecedented scale.
Ah, so my instinct that this situation was similar to linear parks was on the nose.
I had not seen that guidance, about 40m before. @NianticAaron is that guidance in effect? Specifically, should we be applying it to linear parks? Pocket parks? What about amenities in HOA neighborhoods? Do those have to be offset 40m from the nearest house to be eligible?
The whole point was that the 40m guidance was stated in the past and has been removed. I think this is a bad move on Niantic’s part. Unless you see it posted anywhere currently, do not follow it. Niantic used to caution about encouraging players to trespass, and as NianticAaron clearly stated, now the rule is only that it can’t be ON SFPRP.
There would be so much less rules lawyering if they would have kept this guidance, but they have not.
If you want other links to the past 40m rule, I included the term I searched on.
Please refer to the rejection criteria here: Rejection Criteria — Wayfarer Help Center
After digging into non hallucinated search results, I don’t see any indication that the guidance has changed. The guidance is still: if the wayspot is very close to SFPRP, check carefully that accessing that wayspot does not require crossing SFPRP.
I came across some links to in depth discussions buried deep in the help pages but could not access the contents because the help page contents are currently unlinked. The search function in the standalone version of the pages (thanks for that PSA, cyndiepooh!) was not helpful.
FWIW, going by the guidance given in the rejection criteria for LFLs, I would approve this LFL.
And without evidence presented that the strip between the sidewalk and the street is not the homeowner’s property, I would not. We did not see the original nomination to see if that evidence was presented. I think having to figure out who technically owns the land the LFL is on puts an undue burden on Wayfarers. “Phil” clearly thinks this is his property to put his LFL on.
We didn’t see the original nomination. We don’t know what evidence the nominator provided. They may have chosen to provide additional evidence.
What we do know is that it is not necessary to cross private property to access the LFL. That’s the guideline for items on shared land within 40m of SFPRP.
The fact that LFLs were involved in that lawsuit doesn’t make the rules different for them in some way. We need to apply the guidance the same way whether we’re talking about a PROW or a linear park.
The fact that Phil put a LFL there does not mean he believes it is his property. I have a lovely coastal sycamore in the green space between the sidewalk in front of my house and the street. I care for it, hire an arborist to trim it, etc, but I am under no illusion that the tree, or that square, is mine. A neighbor decided to pave over their green square after having tree after tree die on them. They learned PDQ that that land is not theirs to do with as they wish.
I plan to mount a LFL on that tree in the next year or two. I’m going to go through one of several programs the city has to increase literacy and access for underserved teens. That library will be a collaborative resource on shared land.
Be sure to offer proof of that in your nomination. Best of luck to you.
The city/county/ municipality owns the rights to that land, not the homeowner. Egress and easement laws make it easy for the government to do whatever they like on the road verge.
Such as remove the LFL the homeowner put up.
