I have had a reply from Help Chat after requesting a removal stating “We took another look at the Wayspot(s) in question and decided that it does not meet our criteria for removal at this time.”.
Ticket: # 38944974
It is a plaque on the wall of a SFPRP so I assumed it would be a slam dunk.
The location is a Close with rows of bungalows, maps clearly show individual doors for each property.
I will not give the details (at least for now) to prevent any argument if any local players that use the stop sees it.
Staff will be able to get the details from the ticket so hopefully they will take a look.
(For none staff, should I tag a couple of the members of staff to get their attention?).
@NianticAaron has seen the post (seems to have edited it without changing anything?).
If you want the Co-ords please DM as at the moment trying to keep the location anonymous as I was not expecting to have to identify me as the “Reporter” when I assumed it was an obvious removal. Hope you understand.
Ah, I disagree that this is the boundary of SFPRP. Although it is a boundary wall and those are individual bungalows, the wall is a boundary wall for the entire complex. The footpath past the Sherwood Court sign is not a private one for just one bungalow, even up to the front door as it is also the access for all other bungalows with a path directly in front of them all the way along.
I’m going to go out on a limb and suggest your unease with this wayspot is that the google maps location it signifies is marked as “Sheltered Accommodation”, and that the idea of people coming from elsewhere and congregating here could be an issue.
Even if it was entirely within the housing complex, which isn’t, this shouldn’t stop a POI being a wayspot, because residents of that complex are able to play Pokemon Go. Other people should use normal discretion when deciding whether to invade. (Not every wayspot has to be accessible by every person.)
As it happens, I consistently fail with POI inside housing complexes that look remotely like supporting living or sheltered accomodation, even if they aren’t. These complexes make people very uneasy about wayspots there.
My friend lives somewhere laid out very similarly to this, and her grounds are all communal, so in your example if things worked the same I’d expect that wall to also be for the whole area not for 1 house, ie not sfprp
The path past the sign is no different to the path outside my house which is used to get to the other houses on the street. It is a boundary wall for the first / last bungalow otherwise it would pass all the bungalows.
The additional path across the front of the bungalows is placed to allow easy access. It allows those that may visit multiple homes (home help etc) and residents that may want to visit neighbours etc.
Each bungalow also has its own footpath so it isn’t the access for all bungalows. It’s additional to mainly help with mobility.
It is common in some areas that houses will share a path from the pavement to the middle of 2 houses then split to the front doors. They are still SFPRP.
I didn’t even consider this when reporting but it could “add” now that you have brought it to attention.
This may be the case for your friends home but I used to work delivering including to many of these types of location and for the majority each would be treated separate with Residents placing planters / ornaments on their “plot”.
It is left open so the council are able to run a mower over the grass easily and quickly.
The other reason I did report is that the plaque is for the housing association, an advert! I see this no differently to the American “Estate Signs” that are often discussed in the forums.
Allowing residents to put pots out is common, it doesn’t mean the grounds are not communal. To me this does not look anything like a boundary wall for 1 house, no concerns its sfprp and clearly neither does niantic
I’m happy with that. I’ve been finding we tend to have the same opinions on most things, so it is comforting to find we are different people
That’s an excellent point. It also means this removal falls into the trap that acceptance criteria and removal criteria are not compatible. Something that fails acceptance criteria can also fail removal criteria.
So if number 1 decided to place his pots at number 5 then nothing would be done?
What if number 5 had Grandkids that he constantly sends to play outside Number 1, do you think nothing would be said?
As it is outside 1 house I can see it no other way…
I have stated above that I accept the decision (not local so doesn’t effect me) but decided to post the details to start a discussion (which it has).
Niantic have been known to make mistakes and I personally believe this is the case for this, others obviously don’t which is why things are discussed.
The only conclusion I have gained so for is “don’t report anything where boundaries are not clearly defined as it will be classed as “Public” area and whether the object does not meet criteria is irrelevant”
Indeed. Or all the pots would be removed. Or 5 would say thanks for the lovely plants.
I’ve lived in a flat with communal grounds too, similar to how these bungalows work, and you can’t prevent other people’s kids from playing outside your windows and kicking their balls at your house. Because its communal.
I don’t know how you can’t see that this is communal lol, especially if you say this is your job. Its really obvious.
Which you will be aware that I totally disagree with.
Just thought that with this and the fact it is on a wall that is at the boundary of a Private Residence where a Single Family lives would have made it an slam dunk…
By flats are these multi storey? Theses are single storey where each bungalow will expect that the land at the front of their bungalow is part of that bungalows “plot”.
Totally different where flats have multiple floors so land outside a certain flat would also be outside upstairs flats. These tend to be “Communal” otherwise the upstairs would not have use to any garden. Totally different to these.
Quite easily, it is obvious that the section of land is outside individual residences lol.
This isn’t obvious either way. I lived in a townhouse that had a very similar layout to this, with a wedge of land in-front to the side exactly the same as here. The council contractors came by periodically to massacre the shrubs, but the wedge of land still felt attached to my property.
For the purposes of removal, not being obvious is the issue.
