Questions regarding actions Post-Removal appeal rejection.
Atvar8-ING
Posts: 3 ✭✭
A Wayspot removal and subsequent appeal was recently rejected to a wayspot that does not have any safe access as a pedestrian. Access to the facility is restricted with multiple guards and gatehouses on the property and the wayspot can only be accessed by driving, or walking across a busy lot where semi trucks and trailers are frequent.
As Niantic has in the past referred removals to go through the owner of the business that owns the facility the wayspot is on, a member of our team took them a letter we had drafted for just such an occasion asking for access and explaining what a wayspot is/what they are for. This page included links to Niantic's website, PoGo and Ingress pages. We stated if access was not available or welcome, that they have the ability to request the wayspot's removal themselves should they choose via another link provided. The request was well worded and mostly generic, not calling out any players or other identifying info short of a Name and AgentID with an email address to contact for further questions.
Was this crossing a line, or was this in line with fair play guidelines? Niantic input would be greatly appreciated so we can tailor our requests going forward.
I'd be happy to post a copy of the letter delivered (minus my own name.) as well as the portal appeal rejection should it be requested.
Comments
That was way over the line. You're dragging people who don't even play the game into your local drama. You might even get somebody who works there in trouble with their employer.
You're the kind of buffoons who give PoGo and Ingress players a bad reputation. You're ridiculous.
If the wayspot is in a location where it can safely be accessed on foot by employees and guests of the business, then it's a perfectly valid location, and if you personally don't have any business being there, then you should just ignore that wayspot and not encroach on the property of the business or otherwise put yourself in danger by trying to access it from an unsafe location. There was no need to attempt to get the business owner involved in this case.