This is likely being removed based on Single Family Private Residential Property rules. This looks to be in the yard of someone house. If so, I would not approve this nomination.
I know it can be difficult to get wayspots in residential areas, but this doesnât look like a good choice.
You are not right. First find out the correct information and then express yourself. This stone is located on the street. Thatâs why Iâve attached a link to Google Maps to show that the place has a free access. The space between the sidewalk and the house is municipal land, not private. If Niantic were to strictly adhere to your claim, they would have to remove an estimated 25% of all wayspots from the game because (according to you) they are located on private property.
You can address the observation that it looks like SFPRP without being rude to the person who tried to offer you an issue you could address in appealing the removal.
Iâd be cautious about resubmitting something thatâs been successfully removed so many times. Niantic could consider it to be abusive submissions.
I havenât checked into this nomination to give an opinion on its eligibility, but if Niantic denies this appeal I definitely wouldnât resubmit it again.
It is interesting that each âmunicipalâ yard in front of the houses is different up and down the street. Some have bushes and flowers planted, while others have what appears to be gravel. To me this says that each yard is maintained by the associated homeowner.
The wayspot in question is on one of these yards. So I donât feel it is inaccurate to consider that yard and therefore the wayspot to be on SFPRP.
The fact that this nomination has been successful 7 times isnât the cause of my worries about abuse. Itâs the fact that Niantic has removed this spot 6 or 7 times already.
While itâs true each of these removals could have been incorrect, if this appeal is rejected, I donât think resubmitting again is a great idea. And I donât know what the threshold is for Niantic to consider cases like this abuse. Iâm just saying I would be cautious about resubmitting Wayspots that have been removed, especially multiple times.
Hey @mattiec741 and thanks for your reply and interest.
I am suggesting that it is now up to the company to maker a decision and clearly communicate it to those directly involved. Publishing such a decision here would help others in the future.
I am not considering it good customer service to keep approving and disapproving the same thing. It just adds confusion which is not the submitters fault.
Although I do not play Ingress myself, I am aware that âgamingâ does go on.
A final decision from the company, that is clearly communicated, should clear this matter up.
Well, thatâs an interesting wayspot. Looking at StreetView it absolutely appears to be on a private residential property, especially after going up and down the road and looking at the verges next to the pavement. But yet the marker does not appear to be owned by the property and the most likely explanation is that it is a municipal marker which has distinct ownership.
So, it is contradictory but in my opinion the evidence is that it is on a private residential property. I am not familiar with this type of marker, I suspect the Wayfarer staff are not either, so I suggest finding some supporting evidence that this marker is (or these markers in general are) distinct from the private residential property that they appear to be on.
You really only think so. But I understand that you are not familiar with local issues. As I wrote in the post above, all the space between the sidewalk and the house is municipal land. The people living in the houses take care of these grounds and maintain them according to their ideas, therefore this space in front of each house is different. The 1km stone sign is older than anyone reading this. The sign is definitely not privately owned, it is the property of the municipality. And even if the sign was on private property, it is clear from the submitted photos and the link to the maps that it is freely accessible from the sidewalk and its presence in the game does not in any way limit the property ownerâs rights. Itâs definitely a legit wayspot for me. No discussion. The question remains how Niantic wants to assess wayspots that are e.g. decoration on the facade of a residential building. And I know countless such portals. In this particular case, it is repeated malicious reporting by one player from another location, who is annoyed that I keep destroying his portals. And portal reporting is not his only unfair play. He keeps moving me the portals that I use to create fields. But that belongs to another topic. Therefore, I request a thorough assessment by Wayfarer. Thanks for your understanding
If as you you claim it is municipal land, then please provide a citation. In most countries that land would be treated as a private residential properties. However, you yourself say that is in the care of the property owner which by extension may mean that it still counts as PRP regardless.
I think it would be impossible for Niantic to keep up with all the various country, regional, or municipal laws and rules. If an area abuts a SFPRP and looks seamlessly to be a part of that property, such a personalized and cared for by each SFPRP owner, it seems only logical that the area is part of the home. If you can demonstrate that it is in fact the city/town that actively tends to/cares for the area and home owners do not, that would be different.
I think itâs a pretty common setting in Eastern Europe - youâre supposed to take care of the sidewalk/grass that is right next to your property so that it doesnât look unkempt lest you get a citation, but you cannot permanently alter it in a significant manner or treat it as yours (if there is grass, you canât pave it over, an owner wouldnât be able to request the removal of this marker or, in certain cases, they can be denied footage from municipal security cameras if their request pertains to a pretty insignificant incident, like a car getting scratched on accident by another one; the municipality can also demand that you stop growing flowers on the plot and you are not allowed to post signs there).
Hello there, because i live in Czechia too, i can say some usefull infos. Private property mus be behind fence or have sign with , SoukromĂ˝ pozemek, ( private property). We can on google maps clearly see, well better said we cant see any fence or sign. Then itâs public.
***Mod Edit of post to remove accusations not relevant to the actual object.
Hereâs more evidence for all those who keep saying this is private land. So once and for all: NO, IT IS NOT PRIVATE LAND! Private lands are marked on the map with numbers (33/6, 33/4, 33/2, etc.). The road, sidewalk and the 1 meter of lawn in front of the house are public!
I expect the wayspot to be restored based on the evidence presented here. It is clear to me that the player in question will try to remove the wayspot again, thatâs why it would also be appropriate for Niantic to prevent further abuse of unauthorized reporting.
There is âpublicâ in term of outright ownership and public in terms of use. If the land essentially belongs to the household for use purposes, itâs not so cut and dry.
I think we have to draw a line (pardon the pun ) as to what is private property. We have been told it is the boundary, to the extent that if a fence marks the boundary then the outward facing aspect is still PRP.
It is quite common in European settings to have houses that open directly onto public space and in some places that space gets attention from residents.
I know of a street near me where it has been closed to traffic and is a public space which individual families look after in their own ways - same sort of principle.
I could see in some countries being this close to a house would be viewed as possibly intrusive but where I live it would not.
I completely agree. I think Niantic needs to have a specific guidance on where to draw the line. Is it legal boundaries, which are difficult to determine sometimes and require more investigation really than an activity like wayfarer should require? Or, is it the obvious surroundings of a family property visually so as not to intrude on someoneâs space? Should POI even exist in residential areas? Should there be some perimeter around a single-family private residential property? These cases keep bringing up the same controversies over and over so guidance that can be applied to various settings would be extremely helpful.
) as to what is private property. We have been told it is the boundary, to the extent that if a fence marks the boundary then the outward facing aspect is still PRP.