Take your pick:
Thanks for the appeal, @nexushoratio. After reviewing the additional evidence provided, we’ve decided to retire the Wayspot in question.
As the original contributor of this very old wayspot, I’ve been asked by community players to advocate for its reinstatement. I have additional, onsite details to support this request. Normally, this would be a long shot, but the objections cited by nexushoratio are quite inaccurate. My contributor page still shows the wayspot as “accepted” (perhaps because of the corporate change in progress), so I can’t submit an appeal through that avenue. Please understand this channel is the local community’s only avenue to communicate. The 2 screenshots and 8 photos attached were made by me, with the photos taken in the real world, on-site, without modification. I took my surveying tape measure out there to check distances, Sorry, but using accurate actual images to counter three different errors means a lot of photos.
The three objections listed by nexushoratio are negated as follows:
The object is not on private property. See screenshot from Santa Clara County’s ARCGis, showing relative location of property lines and fences. This image is taken directly from the official SCC website, which displays property boundaries as orange lines overlaid on a satellite image (i.e., google maps). (Image 1).
The object clearly, even in the screenshot nexushoratio selected remotely from google maps, does not block the hydrant in any way. See real-world photos 5, 6, and 7, attached. It is much further back from the road than the hydrant, and also distinctly offset from the hydrant’s north/south position. Diagonally, it is 9’ away from the fire hydrant. (Image 5 and 6: tape between object and hydrant, close up of tape at hydrant, Image 7 is a wider view of their relative positions.)
No sidewalk? The criterion is safe pedestrian access, not a 4’ strip of concrete. This is unincorporated Santa Clara County, where there are no sidewalks. Here, the County provides a safe shoulder to walk on. On this street, the verge is fully 17’ wide, far wider than a typical sidewalk. (Image 8: a wide view showing the full width with tape laid across it, Image 9: the end of the tape showing the roadway edge, including the white line, Image 10: close-up of measurement at 17 feet)
I respectfully request you revert to your original decision (December 2024) to deny nexushoratio’s takedown request. It has long been the case that thoughtful consideration is needed when evaluating rural wayspots, to support and grow the rural player base in a fair manner. For instance, that’s the reason the rule is “pedestrian access” not “sidewalks.” This wayspot was approved by the Ingress community when evaluation criteria were quite strict. It was used safely and successfully for over 6 years (it’s older than Wayfarer itself). There have been no complaints about gaming use coming to (or from) the library’s steward. Players have benefited from exercise by walking the neighborhood with this book-related wayspot as an anchor point, for Pikmin flower-planting and mushroom battles, Ingress linking activities, and in-game Pokemon GO “routes”.
The local Pokemon community members are willing to reconstruct routes if those cannot be restored. We appreciate your time and consideration.
This is always the case. The nomination was accepted, so it remains accepted. It has nothing to do with the Scopely sale.
This topic has been marked solved, so I believe someone will need to remove that tag from @NianticLC for this new appeal to be considered.
Hello and Welcome @tycheananke
Thanks for taking the time and effort to provide the website with the land infomration and the additional photos. The Wayfarer Team can look at this request, but it may take a few days.
I agree that the phrasing should not be about requiring a concreted pavement/sidewalk (many parts of the world dont have these) and that the well kept grass verge is clearly the walking space on this street.
As someone is apart of this community, this Pokestop is a staple, and abides by the Pokestop nominations. The area is a rural area, and we discuss as a community how to help one another contribute Pokestops to benefit those who may not have access. So many people who live in the area were upset, and more so discourages people from submitting Pokestops when they take their time to thoughtfully submit these nominations.
Likewise I plan my days to submit stops appropriately, and it’s discouraging when Pokestops that are vital to people who live far away from clusters are stops are removed. People have to drive 15-30 minutes for raid days alone, hope Wayfarer can be open rural areas that have a large walking space.
I heavily disagree with the OP’s views on safe pedestrian access but I don’t think they’re wrong in believing this to be ineligible.
From the criteria library: Easements, “right-of-ways,” and sidewalks are too broad to make a global statement on, but the guidance is the same as above - if it is part of a private residence, it is ineligible.
This LFL is most likely owned and maintained by the private residence 3ft behind it. Especially in a rural area you’re not going to get in trouble for putting the library out like you would in an HOA infested suburb. So I think while technically they don’t own the land, the LFL is an extension of their private residential property.
I’d say if you can prove that the LFL is maintained by the city/county/legal owner of the land that is not the private residence owner that would help your case more.
A post was split to a new topic: Little Free Libraries
For what its worth, in the uk that wouldntbhave been removed, thats clearly safe pedestrian access, the fence shows the end of the property and id agree thats far enough away from the fire hydrant to be acceptable.
Thank you, Ellie. I understand that this can take a while, with so much going on these days.
If your leadership-level contacts have other questions, I’m open to private communication. I’m trying to stay out of the chat here in the comments.
