Official Historical Building Markers on private Buildings

General Discussion
1

Just Curious of this is the Way it should be. We have some old, very old buildings here but none can be suggested as POI as they are, well, private property. But that metal sign on the front row is from the country, marking it as Cultural memorial Building. The owners have to do a lot to keep these buildings in shape. Thats how its done in germany, so the costs for those old buildings are in private hands.

However, those Metal signs are displayed at the front wall next to the public Walkway to be recognized.

I just feel that this would make far better Waypoints than the next Trailmarker, but they all fail due to “Private” You don`t buy such an old building and do not expect people walk by and watch.
Explain it to me, help me understand.

Thank you

1 Like
2

If the property is a single family private residence, and the plaque is attached to the property (even if it’s on the outward facing side of the property boundary), then it’s simply not eligible. The private residential property rule is one of the most clarified and least ambiguous rules when it comes to Wayfarer.

7 Likes
3

It is frustrating @Horusguard, in the U.K. there are also a lot of instances like this. Places that on walking tours of the area will be included as somewhere to go and see.
However the particular ruling around single family private residential property was the result of a law suit outcome so there is no leeway on this.

1 Like
4

Yes… was not german law, so yes, frustrating. Its a bit sad that so many good wayspots can`t get in the system just because they are private owned.

The other thing is, i could nominate my own private playground as i live in a 2 families home and one company on the ground as well, so this would be ok? I would never upload this, but this is how the rules are, right?

5

Not quite sure what you have described, but is it commercial use on the ground floor with 2 separate family homes above? Typically that arrangement ( quite common in European cities) is fine. You can nominate to the common parts of that building so the outside wall would be ok.

1 Like
6

not exactly… and i won’t nominate the playground of my son, wether the rules allow it or not. its a 2 family house, with a small glas making shop in a second building on the same ground. For me this is more private ground than a single family residence in an old Building that officially a memorial building. Thats the thing that I simply feel wrong with the privacy rule thing.

not meant to offend here, i was just asking, and yes, thats how the rules are, Frustrating sometimes, but thats fine for me.

I search for elegiable POIs and go on wayfaring :wink:

7

The private property rule is a bad rule. It’s highly political and extremely unfair to many places.

2 Likes
8

Its a necessary rule, without that rule, we’d have no game

2 Likes
9

The private property rule was to settle a lawsuit.

1 Like
10

Yes. A class action lawsuit from homeowners whose lives were disrupted because not all gamers “know how to act” (as my mother-in-law would say). They blocked driveways, kept babies awake, trampled gardens, interrupted mail delivery, and more. The lawsuit settlement includes that potential wayspots within 40m of the edge of a single family private residence will be examined to make sure it won’t cause a nuisance if a crowd gathers there. In recent years, Niantic has dropped reference to the 40m.

3 Likes
11

Mm… no. I don’t think so.

I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice.

A quick reading through an online search shows me that the lawsuit was against pogo, not ingress. And the basis of the complaint was trespassing as encouraged by Niantic, a commercial enterprise. The complainants won an award of $1000 each, (a trivial amount by these standards), legal fees, and some promises from Niantic.

Now… reading between the lines… there is a trespassing complaint, sure. And that was born out in court. However… trespassing is about use without permission. I would argue that a little free library posted on the edge of private property was an open invitation to visit that posting. No trespassing involved because permission was advertised.

Further, if private property were sincerely the boundary, then all waypoints on private property would need to be removed. This has not happened.

More, there’s an argument here that commercial use, (arguable in this case), of someone else’s property requires permission, perhaps a license, perhaps including a royalty fee. This sort of license would apply to municipal parks as well. In most parks, you can’t just set up a hot dog stand. You need a license to do that. You need a license to use community property for commercial purposes. So the restriction of waypoints to other-than-private property is an artificial limit without basis.

All property is owned by someone. If there’s an argument about permission to use for commercial purposes then that argument applies to all property, not just private property.

Finally, the orders resulting from the suit have since expired. They are not longer in force.

So, no. I don’t buy that the private property restriction was the result of a court suit. These are totally different things.

1 Like
12

See this fuller explanation:

If you want to continue to argue this point, I can’t help you with it.

2 Likes
13

Yes, thank you. I read it before I posted.

There are two potential issues here. The first and primary one is about permission to use. This is what the court suit was about and that was settled, afaik.

A second and tangential issue is about licensing.

I suspect Niantic could beat the licensing issue in the same way that tripadvisor and yelp beat it. That same logic can be applied to spots on private property like little libraries, farm stands, corn mazes, etc.

The private property restriction is capricious and without basis.

1 Like
14

Niantic makes the games. Niatic makes the rules. If you don’t like it, there’s nothing stopping you from uninstalling the apps and finding something else.

3 Likes
15

There’s also nothing stopping me from lobbying them to change their rules as I’m doing here.

1 Like
16

For simplicity, the property currently strictly adhering to the rejection criteria is single-family private residential properties. I will also assume you’ve read the distinction from the Criteria Clarification Collection .

Here’s an article providing some context,

Per the proposed settlement (as reported by Variety), Niantic would need to place a complaint form on its website for people who have PokeStops or Gyms on their personal property, and must respond within 15 days for at least 95% of cases per year. If the complainer has a PokeStop or Gym on or within 40 meters of their property, Niantic must remove it within five business days of communication.

In addition, the proposed settlement states that Niantic would need to keep a database of complaints and use it to avoid putting more PokeStops or Gyms on private property.

An LFL may be assumed an invitation to use the LFL but not necessarily for any other use.

We have avenues to report wayspots on SFPRP. Maybe it has not reflected near you if there has been none who do report wayspots for removal.

There is also an option for property owners to request removal/modification of the wayspots as seen from the top of this forum (regardless if the location is allowable per criteria too).

I’ve also questioned similarly. What I can extrapolate:

  • It seems that there are certain locations are deemed tolerable for placing wayspots.
  • From a business perspective, you’d want to prevent any further lawsuit especially related to what has been previously settled.
  • As more bad eggs and nuisances happen in relation to any Niantic-related product (or AR game for this matter) the allowable locations we can enjoy will get fewer and fewer.

I too also have problems with K-12 in addition to these SFPRPs being wholly ineligible locations as some of the public schools from my country also place parks and sports facilities within their property (partly for cost/space-cutting).

IMO it will take a huge self-regulation among the behavior of the playerbase + even larger monetary incentive for Niantic to change this stance + shifting the perspective of the non-playing public. I am doubtful that we can meet these.

8 Likes
17

Yes, once a company has settled a lawsuit, they are not free to go back and repeat the same offence. A company with a good conscience will try not to redo the thing that got them into trouble.

From the lawsuit, named “POKÉMON GO NUISANCE LITIGATION”, settlement page 4, Article 7 f:

(f) Niantic will add specific instructions to the current review form that Niantic’s user-reviewers use to evaluate new POI submissions that direct user-reviewers to increase scrutiny regarding any proposed POI that may be located on or within 40 meters of a private single-family residential property, and POI that appear to be located in neighborhood parks. At a minimum, such instructions will include directions for the user-reviewer to examine the proposed POI using a variety of sources, including but not limited to mapping services maintained by private companies such as Google Maps. After such review, Niantic will use CRE to avoid placing the POI on any property that appears to the reviewer to be a single-family residential property.
(g) Niantic agrees that it shall manually review a statistically significant percentage of new POI submissions via a Niantic employee or contractor for the principal purpose of trying to avoid POI that are more likely to lead to issues with nuisance or trespass.

(I included g too because I think it’s interesting.)

Of course we reviewers are not party to this lawsuit, settlement, or any legal action or consequence that could happen. It’s up to Niantic (and their lawyers) to be clear, or not, with their instructions to us. Perhaps they think they’ve been clear. Perhaps they have some automatic thing that they think is working. Yet here we are.

5 Likes
18

Interesting point. I’m not sure that could be supported in court. (Again, IANAL).

I mean, it sort of depends. Is a portal more like a hot dog stand or more like a Yelp review? It would have to be more like a Yelp review or Niantic would owe licensing fees for every single “commercial” use of property, ie, every portal. And if it’s more like a Yelp review then I don’t think Niantic is responsible for how the user uses it.

My point about all property having an owner was that “private property” is largely irrelevant to the question of licensing. If a license, or permission, or royalties are required, then they are likely to be required of all property regardless of the owner.

19

However the law interprets it, currently the criteria is very non-negotiable for those types of properties (single-family private residential property). What is the criteria after all if not checks, balances, and compliance. And it may not just end at compliance to the law. The risk involved might just be too high at the end of the day. Seems the playerbase has burned the possibility.

You’ve already said that you think licensing doesn’t make sense for excluding one type of property. That doesn’t exclude any other reason for the exclusion. It can be multifaceted.

That also doesn’t exclude the possibility that submitters should be aware of that restriction when submitting. In review, we assume in good faith that the submitter has done so legally (including right to access, take photos, etc.). However, the submitter ideally do need to comply to restrictions and regulate how they behave. Real world consequences still do follow even at gameplay.

1 Like