This waypoint was always questionable, as it is a generic neighborhood sign that is, by city GIS data, at the corner of a private residential property lot. It should probably have never been accepted in the first place, but it gets worse.
Since 2020, the city has expanded the I-4 expressway two more lanes, cutting through the neighborhood with eminent domain property seizure. The pedestrian underpass is now a tiny strip of sidewalk alongside a very busy intersection, and the grassy median that was here is now a congested highway off-ramp.
Players continue to collect and use this waypoint, as it is an in-game gym, to the annoyance of the property owners. The city has now gone so far as to include large red āNo Trespassingā signs at this location.
By no stretch of the imagination is this a safe place for players to socialize, exercise, or explore. Please retire this waypoint and move the pokemon gym to one of the other, publicly accessible, safer access points - for the benefit of our local community.
Thanks for the appeal @Studnicky We took another look at the Wayspot in question and decided that it does not meet our criteria for removal at this time.
@Gendgi I see what youāre getting at, but the suggestion is contradicting one of the most basic wayfarer criteria there is. This is zoned private residential by the city. I included the GIS parcel number to look it up for yourself.
Hereās a link to the criteria clarifications I am referring to:
This includes the outer facing facade, fence of these locations, and property boundaries.
I am not opposed to players being able to reach points of interest from their sofas, but this one is a Pokemon Gym. Itās presence here encourages players to pull their cars onto the curb to hit raids/capture the territory, which obstructs oncoming traffic around a corner where cars are moving at high speeds, or to loiter on private property, on foot, at a corner that cannot be visited (save for by the nearby residents) without walking across either a major highway offramp with low visibility, or a four lane road that is busy at all hours.
While I understand that you could state that it is technically āsafeā, it is still on private residential property with a warning sign against visiting. The big red āNo Trespassingā signs made this seem really obvious to me as an invalid location. People are not supposed to be stopping here.
Yeah, I am trying to operate in good faith here, but I thought I had provided more than enough already with the geotagged photos of the āNo Trespassingā signs, the house in the background, and the history of the area (before the highway lane additions). I described how I can see how it originally got in, despite the guidelines, as this location didnāt used to be like it is now. It used to be safely accessible, so nobody cared much - but it hasnāt been for some time, and the āNo Trespassingā signs are pretty new, hence me finally making the report.
This report being rejected throws everything I know about Private Property into question and feels like a massive reversal of official stances.
@holdthebeer No, College Park is a subdivision. This is a neighborhood entrance sign.
Hereās a google maps link to the location in question:
This is at the corner of I-4 and Princeton. Google Maps even draws the property boundaries there showing that itās on a private residential designated land parcel.
Ya, and the information in the system doesnāt look like it was nominated as the open field or as an attempt to pretend to be a park, just as the residential area. Many would feel this should not have been accepted.
That said, ānot meeting criteriaā is rarely reason for Niantic to remove a Wayspot. You did mention safe accessibility, which I donāt think you can rely on. A sidewalk and a grassy area would both be adequate.
You mentioned the GIS info for this parcel and that itās zoned as single family private residential property. Perhaps itās zoned residentially and vacant for future development? Where is the city link or other information supporting this?
The āno trespassingā does not change the ability to safely walk to the sign on the sidewalk, and somebody with permission from the city can access the sign.
I couldnāt get the interactive map you shared work for me. I was hoping youād provide the screenshot because I had found this before asking you.
This parcel is listed as belonging to the City of Orlando. Iām quite puzzled how a community sign on a parcel that belongs to the city, and is reachable by public sidewalk with a crosswalk in sight could be a dangerous single-family home or yard.
Iād think you would need to show how these apparent facts are now untrue.
Perhaps this lot is instead in the center of a rotary without ped access, or there is no community and the city has sold the parcel to the owner of a single-family home.
No, the map is accurate. The giant red āno trespassingā sign is the reason I reported it, and I donāt feel like thatās unreasonable.
Perhaps I am confused - nowhere in any previous criteria have I seen any indication that private property (yes, legally itās still considered private residential property, even if the city owns it for now, thatās how zoning laws work) with posted āNO TRESPASSINGā signs are a valid point of interest.
Please point me to the part of the Wayfarer criteria clarifications that indicate exactly which exceptions should be made for an area designated as private property with clearly posted signage.
A big āno trespassingā sign says do not trespass. Say someone got permissions for access, are they alllowed to walk to the object?
In the Review page at the tooltip under the Appropriate section, you will see the bounds for what the private property rejection is set to be. Also there are restricted and ticketed locations at the allowed locations section.
Yes, I am familiar with the criteria clarifications. This isnāt access control, itās private property law.
The legal precedent is that POI must be 40m from the boundaries of private residential property as established in Jeffery Marder vs Niantic - but POI that were approved before the lawsuit were not purged.
I get downvoted all the time on the Wayfarer subreddit for reminding people about the lawsuits. They love to forget. I see this forum does, as well.
So, it sounds like the only way to handle this appropriately would be to contact a city official and have them submit a removal request themselves?
The local city commissioner is a neighbor, Iāll bring it up next time I see them. Awful lot of trouble to go through when I thought this would be an obvious appeal.
Thanks for the feedback, I will handle it the hard way I guess
Iāve been in discussions where Iām the one reminding Niantic of the lawsuit you mean. I have no problem raising it. But for the removal of the Wayspot, you will need to prove to Niantic (not me, not @paulingzubat) that this lot of land is zoned as single family private residential property, which your links did not do. Zoning may change, but at this time it doesnāt appear to be residential. And the sign itself is still clearly on a sidewalk that you can approach. Were there a house on that lot then it might be an ineligible location.
You can ask your neighbor to submit a request where they can prove to be a property manager and request removal. In the meantime, players who obstruct the property are under no obligation to play there.
I donāt understand how you could claim that. Even if you choose not to believe the local zoning ordinance that shows the lot itself is zoned private residential, the point of interest is still within 40m of a private residence on the adjacent lot.
I understand that, as forum moderators, itās not you who makes the decisions - but you have been joining in to ask questions, and I am defending my claim that this waypoint is not valid and should be removed.
It could even be argued that this POI is abusive, as itās position at this location greatly favors players who reside at this property.
I donāt get it. I have demonstrated extensive knowledge of criteria, and my report is truthful and has hard supporting evidence.
It seems absolutely absurd to me that someone would look at the big āNo Trespassingā sign the city installed and think to themselves, āyes, this is still a good place to socialize or exploreā
We definitely understand that there are some strategically placed Wayspots that are critical for competitive play in Niantic apps, including areas that have restricted or limited access. This doesnāt apply to those locations. This guideline is about curbing abuse by Explorers who are attempting to make their Niantic app of choice easier to play by submitting fake or misleading nominations. In general, follow the criteria and help your fellow player explore interesting real-world locations in your cities and you should be fine.
Where? I suggested sharing a screenshot but you came back with a link that I wasnāt able to use, and the assessor page I found listed it as city owned municipal property, nothing about residentially zoned.
That was addressed as above. That has never been how Niantic defined providing unfair advantages.
And to reiterate, the sign itself may he accessed without trespassing onto the grassy area marked ādo not trespass.ā
By all means, I do encourage to support what you can. Iām giving you better answers than Niantic will, regardless of if they double down on the original statement or change their opinion. I do, however, challenge you to reflect enough to take in what Iāve said.
A hyperbole that gets shared a lot is the Disney World example which has tons of perimeter ādo not trespassā signs, yet it is still acceptable to have Wayspots.
