Appeal: Local portal wrongly removed
Title of the Wayspot: Brasil Rumo ao Hexa
Location: (-15.8061400, -48.1231065)
City: Brasília - Ceilândia Norte - DF
Country: Brasil
Photos to support your claim
Dear all, I'm kindly asking them to review the wrong removal of the portal, since it exists, it's in street view and the photos prove its existence. I don't know the reason for the removal but I ask that it be reconsidered. I believe there must be many people in the region chasing agents that stand out in the MU rankings, so they denounced the portal as invalid. Having exposed all this I ask that the portal (wayspot) be reconsidered. Regards AllastairC -RESL12
Tagged:
This discussion has been closed.


Comments
The building the mural is on appears to be a private home. Wayspots are prohibited from private residential property, even if the object itself is painted on the outside walk of said property and is accessible from the sidewalk.
The portal actually exists! Some trolling was done to remove it. I also suggest that you do a stalking report to remove troll accounts.
You may reconsider it @NianticAaron was wrongly removed!
This is not a troll comment. You should take a look at the rules. He's right! It doesn't matter if it's on the sidewalk or the street. Regardless of whether it is publicly available. It's on the wall of a private property. The wall belongs to the property and therefore also the mural on it. The deletion is correct.
Proof:
AMA
February 2018
Q48: Little Free Libraries... when reviewing potential portals in OPR, should LFL be approved if they are next to the road or sidewalk within the county/city right-of-way, but the lawn they are on is owned and maintained by a residential home privately owned? These seem to be on county/city property and private property at the same time. It seems the LFL is inviting the public to stop by. What do you say?
A48: According to NIA OPS, If it's on someone's private residential property (right-of-way or not), it does not meet criteria. If it's on a common area that's not associated to any private residence, that should be ok.It's hard for us to know the local nuances of legal access for a global game, so as a general rule, if it's on the 'Do Not Submit' list, do not submit them.
Rejection Criteria says:
(...) "Ineligible location, place, or object
Location is unsafe, without pedestrian access
Location is a private residential property (even if historical), farmland, a K12 and under school (preschool, primary/elementary, secondary/high school), child care/daycare center, rehabilitation center, safety shelter" (...)
These are the conditions of private ownership. If you look at them, you can see that it is not written (INCLUDING A WALL). If you only want wayspot approved according to your interpretations then exclude ALL Brasilia portals that are like that. Here there are many graffiti and murals. The rest is just you wanting to give interpretation to things you agree on and are not explicit in the criteria.
The reasons for rejection are not identical to those for deletion, they are two completely different things.
Including a Wall = (right-of-way or not)
Even if you don't want to admit it, a majority of the portals in Brazil do not actually comply with the rules. But if you don't want to believe me and you mean that I'm just interpreting it, then wait for the answer from a moderator. You won't like the answer then, but I don't interfere any further. Some people may have to learn the hard way before they understand it.
Not to mention that the portal has been in place for more than years. Pretty weird.
@jagunco-ING I'm not a troll, but a long standing vetern of these forums and know the rules well enough and seen Niantic's actions on similar cases enough to know how they are going to rule. This is a textbook case of a Wayspot on private residential property, which is grounds for removal. No amount of "disagreeing" is going to change that fact nor get the Wayspot restored.
Look at the photo, it's an avenue! Yes, you are creating interpretation. In Brazil, we call it creating jurisprudence.
Is the criteria wrong then? No, You just trying to put in a new rule!
Let them start deleting the wrong portals like your rules then.
It's always the same old song when someone from Brazil appeals a graffiti on the outside wall of private property.
We're not the ones that makes the rules and our comments don't matter to Niantic. If they think that the wall belongs to a Private Residential Property (single family) then they won't restore your portal.
"then delete all the portals", ok if you want less PoI you can start reporting them, check the forums and you'll find other people with the same words and then they started requesting deletion of portals that annoyed them. If they are really PRP the chances of "success" is very high.
You say, "We are not the ones who set the rules and our comments don't matter to Niantic." You shouldn't be wasting your time then. it also says, "If they think the wall belongs to Private Residential Property (single family), they will not restore your portal." By your logic, thankfully, they may think otherwise. With this rather obtuse interpretation of rules you try to influence the moderators. Let them decide then, why did the forum experts come to give their opinion then?
Keep trying to influence something there! But play with the correct criteria, not creating new ones.
This isn't something that "we" are making up, but we are describing what Niantic has stated before about things on the walls, fences, etc. of private homes being ineligible and how they have rejected other Wayspot restoration appeals of similar murals painted on walls. If anyone who is not following the criteria correctly, it is those who repeatedly nominate and approve these objects on private residential property.
Were not making up our own rules, only following them...
Hi folks,
If a work of art, statue, etc. is on private property, it is ineligible. This includes if it's attached to a fence, wall, etc.
Casey
source: Religious shrines/statues in private property — Wayfarer (nianticlabs.com)
I didn't state at any time if this PoI should be removed or restored, I don't really care and I fully agree that something on the outside wall like this should be allowed.
You think that I'm trying to force the removal of that portal, but I don't. I know that Niantic won't read our comments, instead, these comments are for you: if you know that the wall doesn't belong to a PRP now you have the chance to explain to Niantic why that is wrong.
When you posted the appeal you had no idea why it had been removed, other users have explained that and with this information you can try to provide useful information with Niantic or argue with the rest of the users about the rules that Niantic uses for portal removals. Arguing won't help you at all, providing useful information before they review the appeal can change the outcome. It's up to you.
Portal válido tem acesso a outros jogadores sim e não fica dentro de residência" todo lugar do mundo tem portais assim Vejo muitos comentários contra, se fosse assim portais no mundo todo no mesmo caso desse tinha quer ser removido se não é removido porque esse está na regra do jogo e é válido isso é perseguição de jogadores que quer atrapalhar os outro jogadores nesses casos tem que fazer observações nas contas que ficam fazendo isso.
Portais errado não, tão tirando mais portais legais do que falso como nesse caso.
Appeal Denied - Thanks for the appeal, Agent. We have taken another look but stand by our decision to retire this Portal. I have also decided to close this discussion for further comments.