Invalid Wayspot Appeal

Title of Wayspot 1: Rushford Climbing Frame

Location: 52.951554, -1.235092,-1.235092&z=21&pll=52.951671,-1.235124

Title of Wayspot 2: Rushford Balance Beam

Location: 52.951565,-1.234959,-1.234959&z=21&pll=52.951687,-1.234717

Title of Wayspot 3: Rushford Drive Swings

Location: 52.951522,-1.234694,-1.234694&z=21&pll=52.951415,-1.234467

City: Nottingham

Country: United Kingdom

Screenshot of the Rejection Emails:

This is an extension of my invalid Wayspot appeal found here -

A player has submitted individual pieces of a single playground as separate Wayspots when there is already a Waypoint for the Rushford Park Play Area in the database. They have achieved this by manipulating the location of a Google Maps photosphere to submit Wayspots in incorrect locations, as well as brute-force submitting each piece of play apparatus until they achieved their desired outcome.

Photos to support your claim:

Photo G shows the Climbing Frame in relation to the rest of the play area. It sits on a raised earth embankment on the western side of the play area. You can also see the close proximity of the swingset to the rest of the play area apparatus in the background of the photo.

Photo H shows the entire play area from the perspective of someone entering Rushford Drive Park. Though there is no fencing around the play area, the close proximity of each piece of play apparatus should indicate that this ought to be a single Wayspot in the database. You can also see the yellow Balance Beam clearly adjacent to a picnic bench and yellow bridge next to the path, indicating it is in the southern portion of the play area, not to the north as it currently sits in the database. Finally, you can also see the location of the Swing Set as directly next to the path.

Photo I provides an overview of the play area near the location of the faked photosphere. In the centre is the physical object represented by the 'Sand Worm' gym (the subject of my other invalid Wayspot appeal). You can see the proximity of all of the play apparatus, including the Balance Beam and Swing Set. This also demonstrates their location on the southern end of the play area. Additionally, this photo shows the other pieces of play apparatus the player has attempted to submit as separate Wayspots, discussed below.

Photo J shows another view of the play area, including a clear view of the Balance Beam next to the path and yellow bridge. You can also see the Swing Set in the background, next to the other play apparatus.

Additional information:

Below are screenshots of Google Maps' satellite view, to help explain my argument and demonstrate the locations of these photos.

Actual Location of Apparatus:

This screenshot highlights the actual location of the physical apparatus represented by the duplicate POIs. The Climbing Frame is in the red circle, on the raised embankment. The Balance Beam is in the yellow circle, on the southern edge of the walking path. The Swing Set is in the Blue Circle, adjacent to the walking path on its eastern edge. The orange circle indicates the area of land represented by the existing Rushford Drive Play Area Wayspot. As you can see, all three of the playground apparatus fall within the remit of the play area and should be considered duplicate submissions.

The actual locations of each of these pieces of apparatus are:

Climbing Frame - 52.951521, -1.235085

Balance Beam - 52.951414, -1.234832

Swing Set - 52.951435, -1.234640

Factoring in the 20-meter rule in Ingress prohibiting submissions from appearing too close to each other, it is clear that the player purposely placed the location of these submissions incorrectly, to aid in creating new POIs in various Niantic games. The location of the Play Area Wayspot would have prevented the appearance of each of these submissions in both Ingress and GO.

Incorrect photosphere:

This screenshot highlights the incorrect location of the player-submitted photosphere in the play area. This photosphere was used to support their submission of the Rushford Balance Beam at the north end of the park. The player's photosphere is highlighted in red. The correct location for the photosphere is highlighted in yellow, at the southern end of the play area. On the satellite view, you can clearly see the small yellow bridge adjacent to the Balance Beam just to the west of the yellow circle, on the southern side of the walking path. The proximity of the Balance Beam and yellow bridge is also demonstrated in Photo J above. There is actually a pair of generic black metal benches at the location of the faked photosphere.

Clearly, the player faked the location of the photosphere to aid in submitting the Balance Beam in a different Level 17 S2 cell, to create a new Pokestop in the park.

Supporting Photo Locations:

To aid in locating where I stood to take the supporting photos, this is a screenshot of Google Maps with my standing locations.

Existing Wayspot in Ingress:

This is a screenshot of the existing Wayspot for the Rushford Park Play Area, found in Ingress. As you can see, the Wayspot image reflects the play area as a whole, with a sign denoting its entrance (yes, the sign has seen better days, but it functions nonetheless).

The remaining three photos on this Wayspot are the failed attempts from this particular player to submit individual pieces of the play area as individual stops - the Swing Set, a standing swing, and a large metal climbing frame. I am sure you will find these submissions if you look at their Wayfarer submission history, as they admitted this to me in Discord DMs.

It is also incredibly telling that they have not attempted to resubmit the metal climbing frame and standing swing found in the photos on the Rushford Park Play Area Waypoint; now that they have enough Wayspots in the park to get Pokestops and a Gym, they no longer see the need to continue to submit these pieces. This should help demonstrate their reasoning for submitting duplicates as individual Wayspots.


Hopefully, I have demonstrated that these Wayspots are in facts duplicates of the existing Rushford Drive Play Area wayspot. The proximity of each of these pieces of apparatus indicates that they should never have been considered as eligible separately. The fact that multiple historical attempts by the player resulted in duplicates with photos added to the Play Area Wayspot also indicates that a non-inconsequential number of Wayfarer reviewers agree.

Therefore, please remove the Wayspots for the Climbing Frame, Balance Beam, and Swing Set, and merge the photos with the Play Area Wayspot.


  • It is up to the Wayfarer Community to decide whether a nomination is a duplicate of existing wayspots or deserves to be a wayspot on its own. The submitter of this appeal seems to propose their opinion should override a majority decision taken from the community in three separate instances, and it is hoped on this occasion Niantic would align with the community decision rather than with what sounds like a personal crusade. The appeal request contains pretextuous comments on the presumed reasoning of another player which are defamatory, inconsistent, and in fact irrelevant to the case. The submitter of the appeal would like these valid wayspots removed for being duplicate, while at the same time takes issue with the fact that the original nominator would not resubmit other POIs that had indeed been marked as duplicate? Clearly there is some confusion here so Niantic should filter out inaccuracies and personal hypotheses from this appeal request and stand by the facts:

    1) The Rushford Drive Play Area wayspot didn't have this title at the time while the three nominations discussed in this appeal were submitted; it was titled "Rainbow Sign" which does not represent a playground area; at that time, a removal request for that wayspot had been submitted, and was still under consideration. It is understood that the submitter of this appeal later asked - and was granted - a title change for that wayspot to its current title, and is now using this fact retroactively to claim the other three submissions - which had been accepted while Rainbow Sign was still the title of the other wayspot - are duplicate elements of the playground. Furthermore, the submitter of the appeal claims the sign which appears in the main photo of the Rushford Drive Play Area still "functions": this is false, as the sign is not there anymore. Indeed it does not appear in any of the photos and screenshots attached to the appeal.

    2) The swingset has been built separately from the main playground, as the only element on a platform to the right from the main path, and its current location is correct. Indeed, from the satellite photos one cannot see the swingset, as it was constructed more recently compared to the time when google satellite photos were last taken, while other elements of the playground were already in place. Therefore it is not a duplicate, and is a valid wayspot in its current position.

    3) The climbing frame is objectively separate from the main playground, on a raised area as admitted also by the submitter of this appeal, and as evident from their photo (it has been submitted only once and never marked as duplicate). Also, its current location is correct.

    4) The balance beam is a piece of outdoors fitness which customarily in wayfarer can be considered as a standalone wayspot as opposed to a playground item, therefore it is a valid wayspot in its own right (as in the previous case, it has been submitted only once and never marked as duplicate by the community). There does appear to be a mismatch between the current position of this wayspot and its physical location on the park, therefore the submitter of the appeal is right in suggesting a new location. I would recommend Niantic takes this suggestion into account and moves the POI accordingly.

    In conclusion, Rushford Climbing Frame and Rushford Drive Swings should be left untouched, while Rushford Balance Beam should be moved to the more accurate location -52.951414, -1.234832. These are all valid wayspots and the above appeal should therefore be rejected on the ground of being factually unfounded, plagued by false statements (in particular about the rainbow sign) and mainly driven by personal motives (see also the narrative in the other appeal request raised by the same trainer for the gym on the park).

    Conversely, the Rushford Drive Play Area (originally called Rainbow Sign) might be considered invalid, or at least the photo with the rainbow sign should be retired. The photo with the blue metal frame could be selected, in case that portal is also to be maintained.

    I would also recommend to avoid baseless accusations of personal nature when raising appeals, especially noting that the submitter of the appeal has routinely interacted with all the stops and gyms they now claim to be invalid - including opening gifts from those stops on a daily basis and occasionally defending the gym - therefore acknowledging and benefitting from their function in game.

  • Thanks for reporting, @HeyItsPugs-ING! We have reviewed the report and have moved the 3 Wayspots to their correct location.

  • ProfessorGugui-PGOProfessorGugui-PGO Posts: 27 ✭✭
    edited February 2022

    Dear @NianticGiffard, thanks for moving the POIs, however the Rushford Climbing Frame is not in its correct location. The correct coordinates are 52.95159929076279, -1.235117805835199 as you can check from the satellite. Currently, you have placed it on the other side of the hill which does not sit on its actual location (see photo) and furthermore makes it almost impossible to interact with, as it's been wrongly pushed too close to the Sand Worm (which was also recently moved following another appeal). Similarly, the Rushford Drive Swings have been moved too close to the central path, while their actual location is more to the right, e.g. 52.95147226340457, -1.2345185553476457. (no satellite photos available for the swings).

    Kindly adjust these two wayspots to match their actual correct location (it's only a few metres from where you placed them now, but given that you are seeking to rectify things, best to do it right!)

    Post edited by ProfessorGugui-PGO on
Sign In or Register to comment.