Pokemon GO Monsters Will Need a Permit to Enter State Parks in Milwaukee

Pokemon GO Monsters Will Need a Permit to Enter State Parks in Milwaukee

pokemon go buddy pokemon

A new law in Milwaukee requires creators of AR games such as Pokemon GO to acquire permits before placing AR elements in state parks.

When the Pokemon GO phenomenon exploded last year, the most popular spots for monster hunting were parks, as they often featured a high concentration of Poke-stops. While parents every rejoiced their kids actually getting out into nature for once, a lot of park officials weren't as pleased, as they weren't equipped to handle the sudden influx of people. One Milwaukee park, frustrated with the game, took things to court, drafting a proposal that would require AR game developers to obtain a permit to place AR elements in state parks - a proposal which has just passed into law.

"We're prepared for all of them now," said County Supervisor Sheldon Wasserman, who wrote the proposal setting up the permitting process.

The ordinance requires that game developers such as Pokemon GO's Niantic get a permit like any other business or group that wants to host park events. The fees will be on a sliding-scale - anywhere from $100 to $1,000, depending on how much of the park will be used and how many people are expected to be there, Wasserman said. The money will help with the park's upkeep, he said, and the permits will help the county prepare for the volume of people.

Wasserman said the county could pursue legal action if a company doesn't comply with a permit.

While these moves are a little late, considering how the Pokemon GO bubble has faltered, the wording protects the parks from any future AR games.

Meanwhile in Illinois, a bill is currently pending that would require the creators of AR games to remove spots from games if requested, suggesting that other states may soon be passing their own "Pokemon GO laws".

Source: Associated Press

Permalink

Steven Bogos:
Pokemon GO Monsters Will Need a Permit to Enter State Parks in Milwaukee

pokemon go buddy pokemon

A new law in Milwaukee requires creators of AR games such as Pokemon GO to acquire permits before placing AR elements in state parks.

When the Pokemon GO phenomenon exploded last year, the most popular spots for monster hunting were parks, as they often featured a high concentration of Poke-stops. While parents every rejoiced their kids actually getting out into nature for once, a lot of park officials weren't as pleased, as they weren't equipped to handle the sudden influx of people. One Milwaukee park, frustrated with the game, took things to court, drafting a proposal that would require AR game developers to obtain a permit to place AR elements in state parks - a proposal which has just passed into law.

"We're prepared for all of them now," said County Supervisor Sheldon Wasserman, who wrote the proposal setting up the permitting process.

The ordinance requires that game developers such as Pokemon GO's Niantic get a permit like any other business or group that wants to host park events. The fees will be on a sliding-scale - anywhere from $100 to $1,000, depending on how much of the park will be used and how many people are expected to be there, Wasserman said. The money will help with the park's upkeep, he said, and the permits will help the county prepare for the volume of people.

Wasserman said the county could pursue legal action if a company doesn't comply with a permit.

While these moves are a little late, considering how the Pokemon GO bubble has faltered, the wording protects the parks from any future AR games.

Meanwhile in Illinois, a bill is currently pending that would require the creators of AR games to remove spots from games if requested, suggesting that other states may soon be passing their own "Pokemon GO laws".

Source: Associated Press

Permalink

We don't like having people in our park! Also there is absolutely no way to tell how many people would bother showing up

Seems asinine to pass laws to discourage companies from encouraging people to go outside in a country with such a high obesity rate.

twcblaze:
Seems asinine to pass laws to discourage companies from encouraging people to go outside in a country with such a high obesity rate.

Who will pay for the park cleaners when said obese people drop their 30 gallon Big Gulp cups everywhere?

Because Heaven forbid that people actually go out and enjoy those state parks that their tax dollars are supporting.

008Zulu:

twcblaze:
Seems asinine to pass laws to discourage companies from encouraging people to go outside in a country with such a high obesity rate.

Who will pay for the park cleaners when said obese people drop their 30 gallon Big Gulp cups everywhere?

Wait, littering is not against the law in the US?

The Rogue Wolf:
Because Heaven forbid that people actually go out and enjoy those state parks that their tax dollars are supporting.

Reminded me of this tangentially related clip a bit:

Can't possibly have the public going out and enjoying publicly funded things. :)

Looking at it a bit more seriously I can't actually condemn this all too harshly like some above have done. Publicly funded things like parks are funded based on expected usage; if that usage is likely to go up then the funding would, of course, have to go up. But that's politically undesirable for the exact reason people are pointing out in this thread: it is very awkward to say to people who are already funding these parks through their taxes that because they now want to GO to the park they were already paying for they need to pay more. Its a bit different from other public services like the emergency services where technically everyone is using it all the time because you're paying for 24/7 universal coverage on stuff like fires and medical emergencies.

Consequently they've taken basically the only route they have available here: raise the money from the companies which are causing the increase in park users. I'm not sure what other option they could have taken.

So in USA if someone would like to organise a big 'stay healthy, turn off TV, get off your fat ass and go outside' campaign, if successful they will be brought to court and sentenced unless they pay a ransom in advance? Glorious. Like Monty Python would have trouble coming up with something more absurd than this.

This seems like a bullshit way to fix a problem that might never happen again. No developer is going to be expected to know every place that requires a license like this, nor can they be expected to afford it.

It's possible this move is also to stop people from getting themselves into trouble, beyond littering. For example, chasing down a rare Pok?mon into a dangerous area and getting hurt, or attacked by an animal. Or unintentionally trampling some rare and endangered species of vegetation. The parks can of course work with Niantic and other AR game companies to prevent interest in these areas, but all those extra visitors will require extra supervision and maintenance, meaning extra employees, meaning extra costs.

If you approach it from that angle, it doesn't seem unreasonable. The money will have to come from somewhere and like Lightspeaker pointed out, asking the public for it is an iffy option.

Hey, that's my city, and the park I played Pokemon Go at a few times. Let's give some perspective here.

Lake Park (the cause of all of this) was pretty crazy. Overall, the city didn't have too-too many PokeStops (for a city). It was groundbreaking at first to be exploring and find a place where there were 3 Stops even close to each other. Lake Park, though... that was crazy. It's full of Memorial Benches, dedicated to this or that other person, and every single one of them was a stop. Enough stops that you were actively walking around and spinning stops all the time. Word got out pretty quickly.

In the "prime" of Pokemon Go -- an event I doubt we'll see again, honestly -- there was good reason to look into this. When our group first discovered the area, there were literally hundreds of people in this single park. The amount of use the park saw was in-fucking-sane. In mere weeks, the grass around the paved track was gone and now dirt. A new dirt path formed that cut through a field with a few stops on it. People would yell about some rare 'mon, and there would be a literal stampede of people trying to rush over there and find it. I didn't personally see a ton of litter, but there were already significantly more trashcans, and the park system was apparently using a prison-work detail to keep it clean on off hours. Numerous port-a-johns were added, and I'm not sure I want to know why.

People came from everywhere in the city and nearby areas to play here and I completely understand it being above and beyond any sort of expected park use. The streets were lined with cars, parking and driving on the road was a nightmare, and large groups of people were now walking in front of people's houses. I'm sure the vast majority of them were respectful of people's yards, but even one fucking that up will ruin the whole group. (As a side note, this is the nice area of town, with very very very very nice houses. I'm sure that factors in)

I think the actual legislation is an overstep, but I definitely see the reason for it. Pokemon Go, for a time, destroyed this park.

Sounds entirely reasonable. An AR developer could potentially develop their title in such a way that when playing it it would encourage behaviour not in accordance with what is required of state parks; requiring a permit beforehand would be a way to prevent that from happening.

I remember reading about how when aviation took of house owners complained that they technically owned all airspace above their houses and thus would claim that air planes could not fly over them, a dispute that eventually stripped home owners of most rights to that airspace. Now we have a dataspace all around us that will require legislation in a similar way.

Let's summerize this.

They got free incentive to attract people in public places.

But instead of multiplying poketops in other areas, so to spread the visitors flux and make other public places more visited, they decide to kill it all, by forcing a fee on anyone putting a pokestop (or any of the same system) in any public space.

If they wanted more money, they should have taken the Theme Park route : more food stands, more pricey.
They could even team with Nyantic to organize special local events, and be ready for the crowd.

I'm no economist, and I see what a great financial opportunity they wasted. Who's in charge there?

I do believe the phrase your looking for is, "that doesn't work that way, you dumbass."

Guy's, you do realize that this law applies to state parks, not local city/town parks. So this will have little affect on most people playing the game as state parks are usually something you just can't walk to from your home.

J.McMillen:
Guy's, you do realize that this law applies to state parks, not local city/town parks. So this will have little affect on most people playing the game as state parks are usually something you just can't walk to from your home.

PA may be weird but, there are 2 within 20miles of me
I think 8 within 50miles.

With the Edmonton Incidents and how Ingress players have been affected, PoGo players have nobody else but themselves to blame. The second you put something out there with mass appeal, the Lowest Common Denominators just want to take a hot steaming shit on it.

direkiller:

J.McMillen:
Guy's, you do realize that this law applies to state parks, not local city/town parks. So this will have little affect on most people playing the game as state parks are usually something you just can't walk to from your home.

PA may be weird but, there are 2 within 20miles of me
I think 8 within 50miles.

I can think of two state parks within 20 miles of where I live in TX, but there are also countless local parks including 4 I could easily walk too, none of which would be covered by a law that only applies to state parks.

Fine, don't encourage visitation to your park. No skin off anyones nose but theirs.

Lodum:
Hey, that's my city, and the park I played Pokemon Go at a few times. Let's give some perspective here.

Lake Park (the cause of all of this) was pretty crazy. Overall, the city didn't have too-too many PokeStops (for a city). It was groundbreaking at first to be exploring and find a place where there were 3 Stops even close to each other. Lake Park, though... that was crazy. It's full of Memorial Benches, dedicated to this or that other person, and every single one of them was a stop. Enough stops that you were actively walking around and spinning stops all the time. Word got out pretty quickly.

In the "prime" of Pokemon Go -- an event I doubt we'll see again, honestly -- there was good reason to look into this. When our group first discovered the area, there were literally hundreds of people in this single park. The amount of use the park saw was in-fucking-sane. In mere weeks, the grass around the paved track was gone and now dirt. A new dirt path formed that cut through a field with a few stops on it. People would yell about some rare 'mon, and there would be a literal stampede of people trying to rush over there and find it. I didn't personally see a ton of litter, but there were already significantly more trashcans, and the park system was apparently using a prison-work detail to keep it clean on off hours. Numerous port-a-johns were added, and I'm not sure I want to know why.

People came from everywhere in the city and nearby areas to play here and I completely understand it being above and beyond any sort of expected park use. The streets were lined with cars, parking and driving on the road was a nightmare, and large groups of people were now walking in front of people's houses. I'm sure the vast majority of them were respectful of people's yards, but even one fucking that up will ruin the whole group. (As a side note, this is the nice area of town, with very very very very nice houses. I'm sure that factors in)

I think the actual legislation is an overstep, but I definitely see the reason for it. Pokemon Go, for a time, destroyed this park.

Ok so what you describe is problem with low personal culture of people that gathered not problem with thing that got out of the house and into the park. Unless there's some different reasons in USA, here parks are for the people and people are encouraged to come there in numbers. If the grass was trampled it was either poorly groomed, not a good type or not rooted yet. I get that there are plants and parts of the parks which shouldn't supposed to be walked on by people but that's what are park wardens/security/whoever is responsible for park for. If there is too much interest - you organize an event hire extra man and put up booths to sell tickets and control how many people are in and what they do. In worst case scenario you have money to fix what you couldn't protect.

To me it looks like lazy and lousy legislation, covering up incompetence and what's worse going against public interest. Not a sign of good governance on any level.

:P

However what you mentioned - unevenly spread stops. They could have easily work with Niantic to change layout of them or even buy few licences and organise pokemon related events away from that particular place but 'lure' in people somewhere else. Question is if you do have anything like that in the first place or local authorities just have the park and that's that, work done, no other public leasure place available.

Jamcie Kerbizz:

Lodum:
Hey, that's my city, and the park I played Pokemon Go at a few times. Let's give some perspective here.

Lake Park (the cause of all of this) was pretty crazy. Overall, the city didn't have too-too many PokeStops (for a city). It was groundbreaking at first to be exploring and find a place where there were 3 Stops even close to each other. Lake Park, though... that was crazy. It's full of Memorial Benches, dedicated to this or that other person, and every single one of them was a stop. Enough stops that you were actively walking around and spinning stops all the time. Word got out pretty quickly.

In the "prime" of Pokemon Go -- an event I doubt we'll see again, honestly -- there was good reason to look into this. When our group first discovered the area, there were literally hundreds of people in this single park. The amount of use the park saw was in-fucking-sane. In mere weeks, the grass around the paved track was gone and now dirt. A new dirt path formed that cut through a field with a few stops on it. People would yell about some rare 'mon, and there would be a literal stampede of people trying to rush over there and find it. I didn't personally see a ton of litter, but there were already significantly more trashcans, and the park system was apparently using a prison-work detail to keep it clean on off hours. Numerous port-a-johns were added, and I'm not sure I want to know why.

People came from everywhere in the city and nearby areas to play here and I completely understand it being above and beyond any sort of expected park use. The streets were lined with cars, parking and driving on the road was a nightmare, and large groups of people were now walking in front of people's houses. I'm sure the vast majority of them were respectful of people's yards, but even one fucking that up will ruin the whole group. (As a side note, this is the nice area of town, with very very very very nice houses. I'm sure that factors in)

I think the actual legislation is an overstep, but I definitely see the reason for it. Pokemon Go, for a time, destroyed this park.

Ok so what you describe is problem with low personal culture of people that gathered not problem with thing that got out of the house and into the park. Unless there's some different reasons in USA, here parks are for the people and people are encouraged to come there in numbers. If the grass was trampled it was either poorly groomed, not a good type or not rooted yet. I get that there are plants and parts of the parks which shouldn't supposed to be walked on by people but that's what are park wardens/security/whoever is responsible for park for. If there is too much interest - you organize an event hire extra man and put up booths to sell tickets and control how many people are in and what they do. In worst case scenario you have money to fix what you couldn't protect.

To me it looks like lazy and lousy legislation, covering up incompetence and what's worse going against public interest. Not a sign of good governance on any level.

:P

However what you mentioned - unevenly spread stops. They could have easily work with Niantic to change layout of them or even buy few licences and organise pokemon related events away from that particular place but 'lure' in people somewhere else. Question is if you do have anything like that in the first place or local authorities just have the park and that's that, work done, no other public leasure place available.

Right, but the park department only has so much money to take care of the park and it's already recently got several new trees planted, a lot of resodding grass, repairs to a large stone bridge among other things done before Go was a thing. The idea of the license would be to recoup money that would need to be spent on extra work because of the insane amount of traffic, I don't imagine the parks department budget is exactly overflowing.

Either way, they removed a lot of the stops in what seems to be an attempt to even it out, but I'm not expecting one company to really track every single city like that. Hopefully they just improved the automated system, and have checks in to flag places that might need to be manually verified. That, and the fact no one gives a rat's ass about Pokemon Go anymore, means it probably won't be a problem. But, to the political people, it's probably not a bad idea to have a rule on the books before it happens again.

 

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here