I’m a bit confused about the criteria that POI should not be on school grounds. Does that include the area outside of the school?
I submitted this sculpture (which is in front of a historical school building, outside the entrance) which got rejected with the reason “Wayfarer Criteria”, so presumably it’s because it’s a school behind it.
Here’s a map view, with the school buildings surrounded by green (note that I do not have access to maps of how much of the grounds belongs to the school, but it’s a public school so they do not own the property). The buildings surrounded by blue are residential buildings. The sculpture is located where the red star is.
Now, my question is whether I’m misunderstanding something. The lawn where the sculpture is placed is located outside of the school. The school yard is behind those buildings in the supporting picture. So does the fact that it’s in the vicinity of a school disqualify it?
Title: Diamond outside [school name]
Description: Construction of the old section (the yellow painted wood and brick ‘landshovdingehus’, a building type unique to the city of [city name, country name]) of this school was started in [year] and expanded with a new section in [year].
Supporting information: This school is a significant part of the history of the area [area name] and the diamond sculpture by the entrance is suggestive of its historical significance.
Tbh I don’t know why I bothered to mask things in the pictures. There’s enough information to geolocate it anyway.
That looks like it is probably on school property to me, though I’ve not looked at the area on any maps yet.
Edit: I did just check it out. The entrance sign for the school is also on that piece of grass, closer to the pavement, and the map of the school does seem to suggest that the grass is part of the school, and thus that the sculpture is indeed on the school property. I do find it very odd to see a school property without walls though.
In the country where this school is located there is no need for walls around schools. On the back side there is a fence to divide the school area from the residential area, but that’s all (there are openings in the fence so that pedestrians can pass through the grounds).
Again, it’s a public school so they do not own the property. It’s not illegal to cross the property.
I’m assuming the rule “no schools” is to safeguard the children, but seeing as how the sculpture is outside of the school grounds (the children will never be playing on that lawn since it faces the street) I am not sure I understand the criteria properly.
Maybe things are different where you live, but where I live, the school district or city typically does own the property the school is on.
Regardless of who exactly owns the property, I would consider the entire property to be ineligible if it is primarily a place for a school that is not for adults.
Yeah, it’s really not relevant who owns the property in this case, apart from the fact that it’s not the school. It is not private property.
My question is more along the lines of how to interpret the rejection criteria “no schools”. Is it “not inside schools”, “not in the vicinity of a school” or “not in the same city as a school”? I’m interested in where to draw the line. Both for my own submissions and the ones I review.
I guess perhaps more accurately “plot” since a plat can be subdivided into multiple plots. In short, someone defines official property boundaries, and the full property that the school is located in is part of the school.
Ok, so we’re back to the matter of who owns the property?
It’s not private property. It’s not illegal to cross the property.
I am still unsure how to implement the rejection criteria in my own reviews. I would like to know where Niantic thinks we should draw the line. Property laws are different in different parts of the world and we can’t be expected to know local laws across the globe. So there has to be a more general interpretation of that rule.
The terms you are using are not helpful in resolving this.
The key term is school grounds. Not just the building but the area around it that is under the control of the school so on your map it shows the boundary so anything within or on that boundary is a no.
Outside of that school grounds boundary is fine, and can be fully considered.
I think the easiest interpretation of this rule is:
If a potential Point of Interest is inside the boundaries of school-grounds that are primarily for students below eighteen years of age, it is not acceptable for Wayfarer.
The green outline on the map purports to show this boundary, so the diamond is on the grounds of such a school, and is off-limits.
Fair enough. But that still doesn’t explain what “controlled by the school” means. We can’t possibly be supposed to look up plot ownership for everything we review.
I’ve been trying to look at a land registry or parcel map, to see where exactly the property boundaries are, but unfortunately the site to see this information in Sweden is only available to Swedish citizens or those with a Swedish bank ID by the looks of things. As that doesn’t apply to me, I can’t use the service. This could help you determine whether it is or isn’t on the school property, but as it is from what information we have, it does seem to be school property because it’s located behind the entrance sign for the school, and it’s reasonable to assume the entrance sign is part of the school property itself.
If the children’s school-day ended at 3:00 p.m., and the teachers needed to attend a school meeting at 3:30, they would send the children home, but they wouldn’t follow them to see where they went. They would say “We are sending you home, now. Please exit the school grounds in an orderly fashion. Good-bye.”
Whatever zone the teachers would exclude the students from is the school-grounds. Any signs or decorations or plants or play areas that the school places are most likely to be placed upon these grounds, and are off-limits for purposes of Wayfarer.
Niantic intends to avoid attracting people who are not associated with a children’s school onto these grounds, so they wish the rule to be applied liberally.
This is more in line with what I’m trying to understand. I would assume the criteria is there to avoid people milling about in school grounds, but as you can see in the supporting picture the entrance into the school grounds is visible behind the lawn. That is where the children will be sent home from. However, if we ignore looking at property borders, which in my opinion can be misleading, having people mill about just outside the school building can be troublesome as well as it might make the teachers suspicious or worried. My thinking was originally that it was close enough to where people are supposed to be milling about (the pavement bordering the lawn, and far away enough from where the children are (inside or on the other side of the building behind the diamond). That said, I’ll take your comment as the solution and will myself liberally apply this criteria moving forward.
Case closed. Thanks everyone who helped.
EDIT:
On a related note I wonder if Wayfarers will also continuously review existing waypoints. Where I live every cemetery and church has tons of stops and gyms and whatnot.
And in the same way schools are non-eligible, shouldn’t we consider playgrounds the same way? It’s a place for small children after all.
