Seeking clarity and community opinion on rejected nomination/appeal

Hello all, I recently had a nomination and appeal rejected and was hoping to gain some insight and clarity from the community and possibly the staff. The nomination in question is an LFL ( little free library ) and is located in my neighborhood on the edge of a residence located directly beside the sidewalk. I am aware that nominations on a private residence would generally speaking be in-eligible however I have read a few conversations stating that if the nomination object was clearly meant for public access and located directly adjacent or close to public access it would be considered eligible. In the appeal I attempted to convey that this specific LFL is frequented often by members of the local community and that it is located in a way as to allow access from the public sidewalk however it was rejected again and labeled with abuse which I’m slightly confused about being that abuse sounds concerning. Any clarity and opinions from the community / staff would be appreciated. I have updated photo’s taken today if needed as these we’re taken several months ago when the nomination was first created. Thanks in advance!


Niantic has never said that. They’ve always been clear that anything on single family private residential property is ineligible, and this definitely seems to apply to the LFL you submitted.

3 Likes

There was an OLD comment that was distorted on other platforms to say what you are saying and it was clarified more - let me see if i can find the record of that

I’ll reference this conversation as an example which is likely what the above poster is mentioning though I haven’t located a better clarification.

https://www.reddit.com/r/NianticWayfarer/comments/13a2ctd/little_free_library_change/

I have seen LFLs accepted and rejected that are similar in location to this one which would be the confusing part, well that and the abuse tag lol. Much appreciated for the opinions btw.

(from old post)

Boundaries of Private Residential Property (PRP)
November 2020 AMA:
The considerations when looking at private residential property have not changed with the criteria refresh. Considering that multi-family residences like apartment complexes can have publicly accessible amenities (like playground equipment), these could still be eligible as long as they meet all of the acceptance criteria. Nominations that appear to be within 40m of private, single-family residential property should be very closely reviewed to make sure they are not on private residential property, and that they are accessible from locations not on private residential property.
According to NianticGiffard:
Please don’t confuse yourselves with my previous statement i.e. “If an eligible object is on the sidewalk or near a sidewalk that is not interfering with a single-family residence then it is acceptable.”

This is straight and clear and I haven’t mentioned anywhere that the eligible object can be on private property. It is only acceptable if the object is not interfering with a single-family residence and should be away from it and not even on the edge.

This clarification should be kept in mind - Any object on the property of private residential property is ineligible. As long as it is on the property of private residential property even if accessible from a sidewalk nearby, it should be rejected.

oh that link you posted goes on to share the clarification in the comments.

There is even a criteria clarification thread on LFLs, and it does give examples of acceptable and unacceptable locations, with those on private property being unacceptable.

I actually had a LFL on PRP recently removed, and I’ve had others removed in the past.

1 Like

Welcome to the Wayforum! I wouldn’t worry too much about the abuse tag, not yet at least.

It could be from somebody thinking you are misrepresenting criteria in an attempt to “influence” reviewers, it could be somebody not liking you referencing “players” in the Supporting text, or even just a missclick. You don’t have anything to worry about but I would encourage avoiding re-submitting this as it is ineligible and “spamming inedible Wayspots” may be considered abusive.

Generally speaking, there is little room for debate about Wayspots on that side of the sidewalk as it is almost universally considered part of the “single family private residential property.” If it was on the sidewalk or the other side, it does open the door for debate as that can change depending on local or regional property assessments. Simply being accessible from public/shared land is not enough to override the actual location being private residential property.

I hope these answers have sufficiently taken care of your questions, and again please don’t worry about the abuse unless there’s more you’re keeping from us or are “spamming” similar locations.

1 Like

Unfortunately, most of the edible wayspots I’ve nominated get rejected as temporary :disappointed:

2 Likes

You aren’t nominating the right manzanas.

When someone puts an LFL in their front yard, they’re thinking of a couple people coming at a time. At most, like a parent with two children.

But if it becomes a gym, it could get many more people at once. Being loud in the middle of the night, or blocking driveways, or trampling gardens - all things that actually happened, and the homeowners brought a lawsuit in the U.S., and Niantic agreed not to do that anymore.

2 Likes

One of the LFLs on PRP I got removed had a gym in PoGo. I actually emptied it to see if someone would take it. Less than a minute later, someone did, and most likely living nearby. That’s an unfair game advantage, which is another reason Wayspots aren’t allowed on any PRP.

And yes, the homeowner wondered why I was taking a photo of the area, I explained, and they said they’d have to talk to their kids…I assume they were glad I was getting the Wayspot removed, but not so with their kids.