POI inside a private company.
NoctaD-PGO
Posts: 128 ✭✭✭
Title of the Wayspot: multicancha al aire libre
Location: -34.236692,-70.685493 https://intel.ingress.com/intel?ll=-34.237909,-70.682302&z=16
City: Requinoa
Country: Chile
Screenshot of the Rejection Email: I can't make a request cause i can't get to the place in question.
Photos to support your claim:
Additional information: There's this wayspot in the province that I live that is located inside a private company in a zone that is used for mining tailings https://mineravallecentral.cl/ , and actually there's 2 more inside and one that's even deeper in the company grounds named Plaza Puerto octay that's only controlled by the same player (34.237909,-70.682302 https://intel.ingress.com/intel?ll=-34.238686,-70.673372&z=19) but the one that i'm reporting is the one causing troubles. On Ingress the portal has always been controlled by just one player who happens to work there. As you can see, from the website the soccer field can be seen in the company grounds, and in the screenshot and the intel map the portal in question is a key point blocking huge areas and it's unreachable from the outside cause there's no access to it (unless you apply for a job in that company lol). I think this can be considered as abuse cause only 1 player has access to it, and I don't think the portal meets the criteria to be valid. I asked to different members of the community about it and they told me that they reported this before but the response they got from niantic is that only the owner of the company or a high rank worker can request the removal of the POI, otherwise it'll stay there, is this true?. Should I go to the entrance of the company and make a photosphere of it to prove that it is inaccessible?.
Is there a way to remove these 2 pois? Are considered valid just because ONE person has access to those places?
Comments
I wanted to add that the 2nd POI that i mention (Plaza Puerto octay https://intel.ingress.com/intel?ll=-34.238686,-70.673372&z=19) doesn't even have a photosphere of the place to prove that it is actually there, how did it even get accepted in the first place?
EDIT: photo added to the post.
UP!
There's nothing wrong with a portal having restricted access. It's not a reason for removing the portal at all, and it's very clear in the November AMA.
How does “publicly accessible” apply to locations that have limited access, like members-only clubs, gated communities, time-restricted areas?
Just like with the definition of private residential property, this guideline hasn’t changed. These locations would still be eligible, including restricted areas on the grounds of a company’s headquarters or behind locked gates so long as there wouldn’t be objections to you entering the area and the location is accessible to some folks. We do not expect all players to have access to all locations but we strongly recommend following real-world rules while attempting to access locations.
And also:
Can you explain what “providing an advantage to a single player/collective group” means?
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 doesn’t 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.
The company can request its removal if they wish, but I doubt they have any reason to request it.
I know it seems unfair and people can do a lot of damage with this kind of portal (like blocking whole cities), but it's the rules.
But there are objections to us entering the place. When some of the players got there and asked for access it was denied. So there's no way to get there. And yes, its totally unfair. Hopefully something can be done cause seeing things like this does not make it appealing to play and I believe it also promotes spoofing as I see it as the only viable option to counter this "unfairness"
Then let the company know and ask them to request the removal directly to Niantic. There's a form in each games support page to let them do so.
so long as there wouldn’t be objections to you entering the area and the location is accessible to some folks
"You" in this sentence is whoever is nominating the portal, not anyone that asks. The location is accessible to "some folks" (whoever works there), so there's nothing wrong with it.
Like if they would care about a mobile game lol. I believe they'd laugh at us haha
UP! can anybody from niantic respond this please?
Your report is currently queued up for review. I appreciate your patience until you hear from us with the decision.
Hello @Dandelioni-ING! We have reviewed the report and have taken action on 2 Wayspots and a Wayfinder in accordance with our policies. While we are unable to discuss our actions in detail to protect the submitter’s privacy, they may include, but are not limited to, sending a warning message, placing restrictions on their Wayfarer, Pokémon GO, or Ingress account, putting their account on probation, or placing a temporary or permanent suspension on their Wayfarer, Pokémon GO or Ingress account.
Thanks for helping us maintain the quality of the Wayspots.
Thank you for taking action on this.
But what about the 3rd wayspot located there, @NianticGiffard?
The name is "Monumento Mundial del medio Ambiente" The coordinates are -34.236607,-70.685507 https://intel.ingress.com/intel?ll=-34.236607,-70.685507&z=19
What is more strange to me, is how this wayspot also got accepted without any 360 view made there to prove that the wayspot actually exists in the first place. Did the same person that nominated them also reviewed them so they could get accepted? The player who owns the portal is known for using multiple accounts to play, this is what we call "backpacks", you can even see in the mods placed in the portal that the other account "Tamymon" is one of those accounts used to take advantage of it and have more links coming out of the portal. Is this allowed, or is it abuse?
What was the removal criteria considered here, @NianticGiffard ? It's obviously not PrP, so I guess you are going with the "Emergency Services" one... But considering a playfield to be obstructing emergency services is a bit of a overreach. If we are going to consider anything in any industrial plant ineligible, you should update the criteria to reflect this in a more clear way.
@Dandelioni-ING
360 views are not required at all. The reviewers can confirm locations in many other ways. Also, nominations go through a lot of reviewers, so unless you think the guy has more than 30 accounts eligible for reviewing, other people approved it as well.
Also, you should make your complaints about the multi accouting to Ingress Support. Niantic people here don't usually take any measures about abuse in the games, only wayfarer abuse.
So from now on, wayspots inside private companies are no longer valid and can be reported directly in the forums?
Maybe i should've clarified from the beginning that this private company is also an INDUSTRIAL SITE.
And reading about the inelegible criteria in the wayfarer site I found this.
Doesn't it say it all?
How would a playfield interfere with the operations of a industrial plant? Would they actually use the playfield in their operations for anything else than... play?
The place is private, with guards that do not allow access to the general public, no other player can access that multi-court, not the team that plays there or the rivals
Hola NoctarionD-PGO! Podrías contarme si tuviste novedades con respecto a este tema?
Hi NoctarionD-PGO! Could you tell me if you had some news about this topic?
Thanks man!
NianticGiffard I guess you are missing that warning sign (is understandable, cause is in spanish) is precisely warning about "mountain collapses" or landslides. Is not safe for pedestrians. It should be reconsidered.