Invalid Wayspot Appeal: Barking Creek Flood barrier (duplicate of already retired wayspot)

Spannerdaniel-INGSpannerdaniel-ING Posts: 18 ✭✭
edited January 25 in Invalid Wayspot Appeals

When submitting an appeal, please use the below format:

Title of the Wayspot: Barking Creek Flood Barrier

Location: [Lat/Long],0.094632&z=16&pll=51.515187,0.096531

City: Beckton/Barking border river, London

Country: United Kingdom

Screenshot of the Rejection Email:

Photos to support your claim: All the photos found in this already accepted appeal for the previous wayspot of the same object

The new portal is in almost exactly the same location as the old retired one which met the removal criteria:



Post edited by NianticLC on


  • RandomExploit-INGRandomExploit-ING Posts: 476 ✭✭✭✭

    While I don't know enough about the area to say how accessible it is or not....I can tell you that all who have replied in this thread supporting it are friends who play together and are the ones that submitted it. The same people who would use and abuse this POI.

    So they are not impartial posts 😉

  • RandomExploit-INGRandomExploit-ING Posts: 476 ✭✭✭✭

    Access to the foreshore may be legal but no without inherent risks.

    "Can I visit the foreshore without a permit?


    The Thames foreshore is a potentially hazardous environment which must be respected and contains some dangers that may not always be immediately apparent. The Thames can rise and fall by over seven metres twice a day as the tide comes in and out. The current is fast and the water is cold.

    Anyone accessing the foreshore does so entirely at their own risk. Individuals must take personal responsibility for their own safety and that of anyone with them.

    In addition to the tide and current, other less obvious hazards can be encountered, including raw sewage, broken glass, hypodermic needles and wash from vessels. Steps and stairs down to the foreshore can be slippery, dangerous and are not always maintained. Caution must be exercised when going onto or leaving the foreshore.

    Before going onto the foreshore, always consider:

       Wearing sensible footwear and gloves.

       Carrying a mobile phone.

       Visiting with others.

       The state of the tide; is it rising or falling? Details of tide times is available from the PLA website and the PLA app.

       You may need to get off the foreshore quickly – watch the tide and keep steps or stairs close by.

       Finally, be aware of the possibility of Weil’s Disease, which is spread by rat urine in the water. Infection is usually through cuts in the skin or through eyes, mouth or nose. Medical advice should be sought immediately if ill effects are experienced after visiting the foreshore, particularly ‘flu like’ symptoms including a temperature and aching in the muscles and joints."

    All of which points to that being a dangerous and unsafe area for people to be playing games in. Good enough reasons to probably get it removed again I would think...

  • RandomExploit-INGRandomExploit-ING Posts: 476 ✭✭✭✭

    How does pointing out the bias of a group of friends backing each other up here equate to saying the original post is misleading? 🤔

    It's the misleading info by your invested group of pals that I was pointing out due to the bias

    The bottom line is this POI is dangerous for many reasons and due to this should be removed despite any of the other fluff.

    As to if you think it's been reported because your group tries to be awkward with it and limit the gameplay of others, it's irrelevant. It's a dangerous portal,.end of.

  • WispTrolls-INGWispTrolls-ING Posts: 16 ✭✭✭

    Your response continues to gloss over that there is bias from all involved parties here. As you're friends with people in the area that is being fielded over, alongside occasionally playing in the fielded area, you are also biased. Please provide evidence as to which information is misleading, when we have provided information, sources and references for all points that have been made.

    Your opinion is that this POI is dangerous, despite having not visited the POI yourself. You are basing your opinion on the report of another player, which does not contain all of the information. I have visited this POI myself, and can confirm it can be accessed safely, and have provided resources to verify this fact.

    The comment about "limiting gameplay of others" is nonsensical. The point of the game is to create fields and capture MU. London is a very expansive, dense, diverse and active area, which makes any kind of fielding difficult. Due to the high population density, MU count is high and large fields are desirable. Out-of-the-way portals are logically strategic to maintain uptime of the field. If playing the game as it is intended is "limiting the gameplay of others", then why would this be the intention of the game?

    It's a dangerous portal,.end of.

    Based on your biased opinion of a POI you have never visited, despite multiple resource and evidence proving the contrary.

  • patsufredo-PGOpatsufredo-PGO Posts: 2,512 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Now anyone can see who are the trolls here...

  • RandomExploit-INGRandomExploit-ING Posts: 476 ✭✭✭✭

    I used the same sources/links you and your friends used to prove this POI is unsafe. It has nothing to do with taking the OPs opinion although I had done my own research too.

    The misleading part is the parts about it being dangerous were not copied/pasted from the links in yours or the others posts 😉 Being that being dangerous negates any positives a POI has, it's a bit disingenuous.

    I rarely play your area but that makes no difference. You can insinuate I am biased based on talking to players in the area but my posts are based on facts. Of course I'm going to point out the connection between posters in this thread as you play together otherwise Niantic may be fooled that you are all impartial.

    My job is done. Shown how all who have replied are all in the same social group and also shown it's a dangerous POI. My work here is done.

  • Thanks for the appeal, @Spannerdaniel-ING! We took another look at the Wayspot in question and decided that it does not meet our criteria for removal at this time.

This discussion has been closed.