Niantic just doing niantic things

They rejected a noticeboard as generic business and they quite literally accepted a noticeboard on the other side of the village yesterday.

Isn’t this noticeboard attached to the wall of a private residential property?

Oh yeah, but the fact that its a noticeboard means that people have to gather there so what would be the difference if people playing a game would gather there, its not like the people who live there are going to complain as thats the whole point of a noticeboard.

Its not like the parish council couldve put it anywhere else aswell as that part of the village basically runs along one long stretch of a brick wall and if they put it on the path than people would have to walk on the road or gather at the noticeboard on the road which is dangerous as its the main road.

Anyway why was it rejected as being a generic business if its private property.

1 Like

It does look like private property, which is a weird place to put a noticeboard like that - they’d normally be easily accepted. Typically you’d see these mounted on legs, I guess the property owner gave permission in this case.

The wall looks like part of some older structure, but looking back at old maps I can see no indication that this was anything other than private property. It’s annoying because it looks perfectly valid apart from that.


I understand that its private property now and why it got rejected. But for similar rural villages where theres usually only a village green and a thin path going throughout the village i can imagine there are so many good nominations that are being rejected due to reasons like this where it is public but the wall is technically owned by the house owner, these types of villages are usually such a small place that the council has to cram these things in because it’s like 90% private property. The noticeboard is probably there because the wall is that tall and far away from the actual house that they probably won’t notice people gathering there


Without words here.

I’ve submitted quite a few of these, on review a few of them are potentially mounted on the walls of private properties, but typically they are not. For example, here’s one which is mounted right up against the wall of what looks like a residence, but isn’t actually touching it.

I see quite a few like that, I guess it’s preferable for the councils putting them up too.

There’s an argument - which also applies to wall-mounted post boxes and some other potential wayspots - that there is an implied right of access to the noticeboard because it is meant to have people walk up to it and read it, while standing on the public highway. It’s different from (say) a plaque or mural on a private house which is meant to be enjoyed at a distance.


Agree. I think this likely has a lot to do with varying laws in the UK vs US.

In the UK its very common for house walls to be right onto the street with a footpath running directly up to the house wall. The footpath is public. The homeowner has no rights to what people do on the footpath.

Older houses sometimes have public postboxes built right into the wall. As I understand it, the property owner doesnt own the postbox and has no rights to prevent the public using it. Its just a quirk of owning that kind of house. And I would not say the postbox is on private residential property due to that.

I would see a publicly maintained noticeboard in the same way, if its on a footpath. Its there for people to look at. They also cannot trespass onto the property by touching the noticeboard - as its on the outside of the external wall.

1 Like

Indeed, it seems like this is the crux with many misunderstandings within the wayfarer system, the team simply don’t understand the nuances between different areas and cultures, and don’t seem interested in educating themselves, this causes a great many problems, the rest of the world isn’t the USA!

In this case as has been mentioned, the fact that these items that are clearly designed to be interacted with by members of the public imply access by their nature, this is obvious to anyone in the rural areas of the UK.


Its certainly one case where I “use my best judgement”.

I dont see why this got rejected as the whole point of a noticeboard/information board is for people to gather and read what’s going on in the area so there definitely not going to be on private property if the public cant use what its intended for. Im pretty sure that the parish council would’ve had a chat with the landowners if this spot would’ve been alright for a noticeboard and its not like the landowner can see people at the noticeboard because its a massive wall.


I want to reiterate that anything on the property of a single family private residential property irrespective of whether accessible from a public sidewalk or not, is against the policies and should be rejected.

If you want to get really nitpicky, the noticeboard would be outside of the boundary line of the property as that would end with the wall which it is affixed to. It would be inside the public footpath boundary that starts where the wall finishes.

1 Like

It’s my understanding a postbox on a boundary wall is still private property and the owner can ask for a removal unless it’s listed.

The rational and sensible logic is that a notice board, postbox or whatever on private property are meant to be accessed by the general public.

I’m not sure any argument really works though because Niantic’s rules on these are based on court cases and law?

Theyre always listed though lol
They’re usually the victorian ones
And if they can get it removed thats one thing but I dont think they can prevent anyone from using it while its an active postbox.

Some Victorian and Penfolds are. I think there’s roughly 115,000 boxes around the UK with about 150 of the original Penfolds left and another 100 replica Penfolds installed in the 1980’s.

Sometimes requests are
made to Royal Mail from the
owners of private property
for the removal of wall boxes
installed at their premises
If thewall box concerned is not
in a listed building nor of local
historical interest (i.e. not on
the local authority’s local list
and not in a conservation area
or World Heritage Site), Royal
Mail has a legal responsibility
to carry out its removal within a
reasonable period. If the wall box
is attached to a listed building or
structure, listed building consent
is required for its removal. If
the wall box is a local feature
or of local historical interest, it
is Royal Mail policy to leave it in
situ. Royal Mail will arrange for
the aperture to be sealed, for
the box to be painted in a colour
other than red (normally black);
and make local arrangements
for ongoing maintenance.
conditions will usually require
agreement by site owners. Royal
Mail will ensure that the required
consents are obtained, in writing,
or retain the responsibility itself

1 Like

I think we could discuss it until the cows come home. Get a picture of the owner wearing a Wayfarer tee shirt doing a :+1: with a bunch of people doing a raid and Niantic will just say ‘Yeah… Court cases.’

From (somewhere on) the Royal Mail website, the box belongs to the Royal Mail but the property owner can request its removal. Essentially the Royal Mail borrows the property from the owner, or there is some other arrangement if the paperwork still exists. It seems to be formally defined, but I think that a noticeboard less so.

That having been said, I suspect that if this particular submission got into general voting then it would be approved.

1 Like

I think so too.