Screenshot of the Rejection Email (do not include your personal information):
Additional Information (if any):
Portal was recently approved and got removed a few days later. We had issues with abuse of the removalsystem in wayfarer in the area before.
Portal is on a the yard of a multi appartment building (note the letterboxes in the image). There is no sign about private property and the people living in the appartments has been informed about the portal
I know you’re looking for an official answer from Niantic, but I want to tell you how my brain processes this.
I see this as temporary. It is an object in the yard (you might call it a garden) of a dwelling. Yes, it is a multifamily dwelling. But it does not appear to be a permanent fixture. It looks like it is the personal possession of someone who lives in the dwelling - they placed it outside to beautify their home. When that person moves, they will take this possession with them.
The kinds of things that are eligible in multifamily residential areas don’t belong to any one family. They belong to the entire building and all occupants.
Also, whether or not there is a gate, a stranger is still standing right in front of the window of someone’s house to interact with that item. That feels like a violation of their privacy. While the current occupants may agree that it is OK, if they move out next month and new people move in, how will those people feel?
A little bit of common sense and respect for someone else’s home goes a long way.
Also there is the fact that it has been accepted as a portal and then removed. It’s my understanding that only happen if the landlord send in a request for the portal removal. Something i know for a fact have not happened
The clarification reads that things in common areas may be considered. I don’t think that the person in that unit would call this a “common area” for the apartments:
This is not the only way removals happen. A removal report could have been sent by anyone who saw the portal. Someone reviewing nominations could have seen it on the nearby Wayspots and reported it as on private property.
I can’t give you an answer for what logic was officially used to remove it. I was attempting to give you my logic if I was the decision maker (which I’m not, but it may help just to know how others who don’t live in your area view this).
You ask a good question about the difference between the two windows. It is close but the fact that one is behind a fence and one is not, makes a difference to me. If I were living in the apartment that sits right up next to the side walk, I would know that people are going to walk by my window. They may see a friend and stop to have a chat right under my window. That’s normal behavior. But if I lived in the apartment we are talking about in this example, I would not expect a stranger to enter the yard/garden and go behind the fence to stand at this sculpture. My own dwelling doesn’t have a fence, but it does have a yard that is 2x longer than the one shown here. I would absolutely be annoyed if people routinely stood in my yard to interact with something that I can’t see (or for some reason I can’t identify). A person doing it once or twice, I can shrug off. But there being something there to draw them to my yard? No. That is not OK with me.
Yes but its clear that this is not private property. I can input a list of the apartments if needed. If it was removed as “private property” it should be restored.
So the entire apartment building has access to that yard and it is a common space for the building? Is that what you were trying to show with the “no gate” picture?
(Just trying to help you see what points to address for your appeal from the viewpoint of someone not from the area, since you don’t know why it was removed.)
That makes sense. But I still don’t agree with your concept that strangers are welcome to go behind that fence and stand there to interact with that carving. That’s just weird, in my opinion. And I think you would agree with me if you weren’t thinking of this as a game map and seeing it as a street where people live.
I see your point but i think the issue here is where you are located.
In Sweden we have a absolute right to temporary visit a lawn of a multi appartment home. A private lawn of a single home not so much.
The only way you can be forced away is if there is a “Private property” sign and even if then is one it’s hard to enforce if you got invited by someone living there. (like if it’s gated and and someone lets you in)
We actually have that right in the US as well (though not many people know it). However, the right is based on you approaching the front door on an established pathway. The US Supreme Court ruled that you are allowed to walk to a neighbor’s front door by means of their driveway or other designated path. If they have No Trespassing signs, you do not have that right. If they ask you to leave, that right is revoked.
However, you do not have the right to wander around in their yard. This is getting quite technical, but that is honestly the principle I’m using for my logic. I wonder if the Swedish right is not as broad as you think…
Interesting. I want to make it clear, I’m having this conversation for educational purposes, not to nitpick or argue. This is a fascinating subject to me.
The intent of that feels like being in “nature.” I don’t think I would call this situation “nature.” But there must be some legal rulings about it.
I understand. And sorry if im a little harsh. I want the portal restored as it’s personal for me as i submitted it for a fellow agent.
*In short you have all right to enter a lawn off a appartment building, the fact that they have windows close is up for the owner to solve (some bluring film)
*The portal is legit and a permanent for god knows how long. (from when it was a single appartment building)
*It was accepted and has been before. But a agent is known to report it as it is a couch portal for one on our team
