The mentioning game discussion is not rural specific so we are having 2 different conversations…
Your waypoints may be used in several games so adding game specific info is not required and the time used to add it could be used to add more useful info.
How I deal with this is…
In Title or Description = Instant Reject. In Supplemental = Would normally ignore but if it is a 50/50 whether I should accept then this may drop it subconsciously to 40/60 which drops it to a Reject.
So without AI there is an easy answer, game specifics never help a nomination so don’t put them in.
You’re totally right — I’m not even sure how we ended up down this rabbit hole! Someone brought it up and it just struck me as funny timing because I had literally just been talking with other local reviewers about the same thing — and realizing my own mistake in how I was rejecting stuff that mentioned the game.
I’ve never added game references myself either, honestly because I always assumed it triggered auto-rejections. Not planning to start now, but I’m definitely going to review with a slightly different lens moving forward. And hey, responding to it helps keep the thread active — so why not?
Appreciate the perspective — it’s a good reminder that even when we think we know the rules, there’s always room to reevaluate.
As part of the 2019 settlement of the trespassing lawsuit (filed in the U.S. District Court for Northern California), Niantic agreed to take several actions to reduce real-world nuisance and trespass concerns related to its AR games (like Pokémon GO). These commitments included:
Responding within 15 days to formal complaints about PokéStops or Gyms.
Creating a removal mechanism for single-family homeowners to request deletion of game elements located within 40 meters (~131 feet) of their property.
Maintaining a database of complaints to avoid repeated issues in the same areas.
Displaying on-screen warnings when 10+ players congregate in one place (such as during raids).
Allowing park authorities to request enforcement of hours of operation.
These were policy changes Niantic agreed to voluntarily as part of the court-approved settlement — not legal restrictions mandating a full ban on private property placements.
So What About Waypoints on Private Residential Property?
In response to the settlement, Niantic made the business decision to implement a blanket ineligibility rule for single-family private residential property within Wayfarer. This rule:
Was not required by the court.
Was created to minimize future liability and simplify moderation.
Is now embedded in the Wayfarer review criteria as an ineligible location type.
So, while the lawsuit did not force Niantic to ban residential submissions, the company adopted that rule to show good faith and reduce the chance of further complaints or legal issues.
Could Niantic Legally Adjust This Policy?
Yes — there is nothing in the settlement that prevents Niantic from revising its residential policy, as long as it still upholds its other commitments (such as honoring removal requests and handling complaints responsibly).
If they ever chose to revisit the rule, they could still legally protect themselves by:
Keeping the 40-meter homeowner removal process in place.
Requiring clear evidence of public access (e.g., sidewalk-facing displays, trail signage on easements).
Enhancing in-game tools for players to report unsafe or problematic placements.
Flagging residential-adjacent waypoints for manual review before approval.
Continuing to warn or discourage nominations that involve direct interaction with or proximity to homes.
These types of safeguards would let Niantic support more nominations in underserved areas (like rural communities) without undermining the protections they promised in the settlement.
Good luck with convincing them to change policy. I think it is a good policy. I wish they would be more strict with it, tbh. I hate the loophole that in front of a house but between the sidewalk and the street might be eligible.
Totally fair — and I appreciate you sharing your perspective. I’m genuinely not trying to argue either; I actually love when we can talk through different sides of this without it getting heated. So thank you for that.
Can I ask more about why you feel it should be stricter? Especially in cases where something is in that public strip between the sidewalk and the street (what some cities call the “right-of-way”)? I know technically it’s still adjacent to a house, but if it’s publicly accessible, visible, and doesn’t require entering anyone’s property… I guess I don’t personally see the harm.
Especially in rural or semi-rural areas — where sidewalks may not even exist — the rules can feel unintentionally punishing. Like, if a group of cyclists can gather in front of a house to take a break and cause way more disruption, it’s hard to understand why someone quietly walking their dog or exercising on the shoulder of the road shouldn’t be able to spin a PokéStop nearby, especially if it’s not intruding on the property itself.
That said, I get that it’s a slippery slope, and I’m all for protecting privacy and preventing nuisance. I’m just interested in what feels like the tipping point for people — where it crosses from “public enough” to “too close to be okay.”
We may not land on the same opinion, and that’s fine! I’m just glad we can actually have this kind of conversation instead
I want clear rules and regulations. That is my personality. I think that “not in front of someone’s house” is clear to understand globally.
As a homeowner, I have a fire hydrant in front of my house. So I have an idea of what people accessing something in my yard is like. I would not want people driving up at all hours and stopping there. It would be creepy and disconcerting.
We had an issue in our neighborhood where a seriously creeped out mother was calling police over people holding up their phones and pointing them at her house. When I joined “Next Door”, I was able to explain to her that there was a Pokestop at that intersection that was probably what the phones were aimed at, not spying on her daughter. The Pokestop disappeared soon after that.
I have stopped reviewing because I need more clarity than is currently provided, and I just can’t do it any more. I had a good run. I still submit. But not in front of someone’s house.
Thank you — that’s very clear and completely understandable. I actually agree with you on a lot of points. I also appreciate clear, black-and-white guidelines, and I’ve definitely stepped away from reviewing at times for the same reason — it gets mentally exhausting when things feel too vague or subjective.
That said, I also see the real need that isn’t being met in some areas. I see it in every thread about rural frustrations, and I feel it personally. I long to walk my own neighborhood and play this community game with my community — but there’s just… nothing here. And the few things I’ve researched and submitted? Most have been declined. I can usually see why, and I respect that. But it’s tough when the only way to meaningfully participate requires getting in the car and leaving your neighborhood entirely.
That’s really all I’m trying to express. I’m not expecting a change overnight — or even at all. But I do believe that you miss 100% of the chances you don’t take, and I felt it was worth being one of the voices saying: “Hey, this could be better. This could be more inclusive.”
So thank you again for sharing your perspective. I think we actually agree on more than we don’t — and I’m really glad we could have this kind of exchange
Thanks for jumping in — I definitely appreciate the push for accuracy.
Just to clarify, the statement “the lawsuit did not force Niantic to ban residential submissions” is accurate. The 2019 settlement (Zelaya et al. v. Niantic, Inc.) did not include a legal prohibition against placing wayspots on private residential property. What it did do was require Niantic to:
Implement a system for homeowners to request removal of game elements within 40 meters of their single-family home;
Respond to such requests within 15 days;
Maintain a complaints database;
Implement in-game warnings for large gatherings;
Allow park authorities to request game elements be restricted to posted hours.
The “no SFPRP” rule is a policy decision made by Niantic, not a legal obligation imposed by the court. You can verify this by reviewing the actual settlement agreement, which is public record.
As for the statement “there is nothing in the settlement that prevents Niantic from revising its residential policy” — that’s also correct. Legally, Niantic could revise the policy if it still upheld the agreed-upon complaint handling and removal mechanisms. But it has chosen not to, likely to avoid future legal exposure and maintain a simplified moderation framework.
The current Wayfarer guideline that SFPRP nominations are ineligible comes from Niantic’s own eligibility criteria, not from the court’s legal requirement.
So the rule exists — but it’s self-imposed, and yes, could theoretically be revised if done responsibly. Whether that’s wise or likely is a separate conversation, but the claim that Niantic legally “can’t” allow it is not supported by the settlement text.
Happy to link the actual settlement language if anyone’s interested!
I’d genuinely love to read the reference or see the section of the settlement that shows it’s not accurate, if you have it. Always open to learning more and updating my understanding if something’s off. Thanks!
I have read the terms and I can say with absolute certainty that they can’t allow Wayspots on SFPRP. Infact, I’m looking at it right now. I don’t want to violate any forum policies by sharing the contract.
Anyway, it’s their policy and they have every right to formulate one irrespective of any agreement.
I don’t think it violates the terms of this forum to provide a quote from what you’re looking at. I’d genuinely love to see how it reads — just trying to educate myself and understand the distinction you’re making.
That quote is legit and matches what’s been referenced before. But to clarify what it’s actually saying:
“Niantic will also continue to use CRE to avoid the placement of new POI on single-family residential property.”
This shows that, as part of the settlement, Niantic agreed to implement or formally commit to using their Content Review Engine (CRE) to avoid placing new POIs on single-family residential property. That’s a voluntary operational commitment they made as part of resolving the lawsuit — not a direct legal prohibition that permanently prevents them from revisiting the policy in the future.
So yes — they’re obligated to use CRE to avoid SFPRP as part of their compliance with the settlement. But no — the agreement doesn’t say they are legally barred from ever changing or revising how that process works, especially if it still aligns with their other obligations (like honoring removal requests, mitigating nuisance, etc.).
Really appreciate you sharing the direct quote. It’s good to have the actual language to look at — and it helps clarify where the legal requirement ends and Niantic’s internal policy decisions begin.
I also live in a rural setting and need to travel to play extensively. The problem IMO lies inherently because Wayfarer seeks real life objects that are for leisure, akin to the bustle of cities. The AR gameboard seeks to mirror reality; when reality has less bustle, that is also reflected.
Perhaps features outside of Wayfarer, Pokémon GO features, can enhance playability in low wayspot density areas. Existing features such as rocket balloons, event-themed on-the-ground items, and dropship items are not directly tied to real objects; and much more features can be employed within the lore. This would be a suggestion for the Pokemon GO team, not Wayfarer, though.
Regarding nominations, they are as complicated as reality too. As such, many similar items may range from acceptable to ineligble depending on context. If you’ve read Criteria Clarification Collection - Niantic Wayfarer Community, some nominations require you, the submitter, to lay down the context for reviewers to find it reasonably acceptable. Nomination Support has already been pointed out to provide additional assistance.
AI is deeply learning from the available data set that it has. afaik in this case, it has made connection with an acronym pertaining to itself (AI systems) than the context of the situation (legal terms contained in the doc). In this sense, hallucinations may result when “learning” is correlational rather than causational and contextual.
Outside this settlement’s legal requirements, having the flood gates opened for an already beaten path (SFPRP) seems not a great business decision to prevent any more legal troubles. This also highlights the issue that our behavior out there can impact the existing allowable locations further. So, IMO we have to be wary by behaving as what each location normally accepts; including having limited use of features despite it being available in the app. It is the same as not using speakers out in public transport; we are capable of doing that but it can impact reality and how others react.
Someone brought it up and it just struck me as funny timing because I had literally just been talking with other local reviewers about the same thing — and realizing my own mistake in how I was rejecting stuff that mentioned the game.
What the Lawsuit Actually Required
So What About Waypoints on Private Residential Property?
Could Niantic Legally Adjust This Policy?
from the available data set that it has. afaik in this case, it has made connection with an acronym pertaining to itself (AI systems) than the context of the situation (legal terms contained in the doc). In this sense, hallucinations may result when “learning” is correlational rather than causational and contextual.