Rejection Appeal: Kalpaupapa Lighthouse



  • Hosette-INGHosette-ING Posts: 3,303 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited April 8

    @Bloondie-ING Access to the town of Kalaupapa and access to the lighthouse have different routes. You can post about the trail being closed but NPS has at least one route to get to the lighthouse that doesn't require using the Kalaupapa Trail.

    I have heard a rumor that someone told the health department that players were likely to trespass to get to the wayspot. I don't know if that is true but if it is then I'm disturbed by it on two different fronts-- involving a third party as tool in order to gain a factional advantage, and being inaccurate in doing so. In the nine years that I have had my eye on this portal I have never heard of anyone attempting to trespass to access it. There's been lots of spoofing but no trespassing that I am aware of.

    Trust me, nobody wants to see that lighthouse go away more than I do... it's been a thorn in my side on and off for nearly a decade. I stand by my assertion that NPS personnel almost certainly have safe access to the lighthouse, and thus the wayspot does not meet the criteria for removal. I also hope I heard wrong about someone having contacted the health department to have it removed.

  • NitrousBlue-INGNitrousBlue-ING Posts: 9 ✭✭


     “I stand by my assertion that NPS personnel almost certainly have safe access to the lighthouse, and thus the wayspot does not meet the criteria for removal.”

    I’m trying to find the criteria for removal.

    Is this it?


  • Hosette-INGHosette-ING Posts: 3,303 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @NitrousBlue-ING That is one of the removal criteria, yes. If you can prove that nobody has access to the portal, including NPS personnel, then that would be grounds for a legitimate removal request.

  • NitrousBlue-INGNitrousBlue-ING Posts: 9 ✭✭

    Are there other criteria sources in addition to this? Any explaining perhaps more detail?

    I did find this rejection criteria listed in wayfarer:

  • patsufredo-PGOpatsufredo-PGO Posts: 3,782 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Removal criteria is completely different than rejection criteria.

    For pedestrian access, Niantic will assume a Wayspot is 'accessible' if anyone (or at least one person?) can access the Wayspot, safely. Though this was misinterpreted by many people that restricted areas won't meet that 'safe pedestrian access' criteria.

  • Hosette-INGHosette-ING Posts: 3,303 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @NitrousBlue-ING If I try to report something in-app I get a list of reasons:

    • No Pedestrian Access
    • Obstructs or interferes with Emergency Services
    • Private Residential Property
    • School (up to K-12)
    • Permanently removed from this location
    • Duplicate of another Portal

    The removal criteria are different from and narrower than the rejection criteria. For example, "A generic business, chain, or franchise that is not locally unique" is one of the criteria for rejecting something during review but it is not a criterion for removal. Some of this is because there are many things in the games that were approved under earlier rules but would no longer qualify.

  • NitrousBlue-INGNitrousBlue-ING Posts: 9 ✭✭

    Thanks for that.

    After reading what I could find, and considering Niantic mission & social impact statements, I can not believe that the intent is to have portals that no one can explore.

    From my perspective, “No pedestrian access” means no public walking access.

  • Hosette-INGHosette-ING Posts: 3,303 ✭✭✭✭✭

    For completeness, I looked for previous cases of this wayspot being discussed here.

    January 2022 which was denied by Niantic.

    November 2021 which was denied by Niantic.

    Discussion of the February 2021 move that dropped all links wherein Niantic accidentally deleted the portal. They restored it and the link that were attached, and locked it from future moves.

  • Bloondie-INGBloondie-ING Posts: 35 ✭✭

    @Hosette-ING you say “ Trinity Site is an interesting case of limited access that I think is a good one-- it is generally inaccessible but there are public tours twice per year.” That is a good example of why it this lighthouse is invalid. There are no public tours, and there haven’t been for years now. It is indefinitely closed to the public. No tours, in a closed county. That makes it in accessible with no safe pedestrian access. And please quit making inaccurate and false accusations.

  • Bloondie-INGBloondie-ING Posts: 35 ✭✭

    @Hosette-ING You say “That is one of the removal criteria, yes. If you can prove that nobody has access to the portal, including NPS personnel, then that would be grounds for a legitimate removal request.” The entire county is closed. There are no medical facilities in the county. There is no safe pedestrian access. Period.

  • patsufredo-PGOpatsufredo-PGO Posts: 3,782 ✭✭✭✭✭
  • Bloondie-INGBloondie-ING Posts: 35 ✭✭

    Again, Hosette, you’re missing the point. What I read was that the Department of Health was managing Kalawao County. You showed additional information to expand on that. You don’t see people supposedly on the same team calling the other a liar when adding information, now do you? Yikes Hosette, again, please take your trolling elsewhere. And the rules require safe pedestrian access. Does this sound like safe pedestrian access?

  • Bloondie-INGBloondie-ING Posts: 35 ✭✭

    @patsufredo-PGO “Your source please? Or did you try to make up the argument?”

    The Kalaupapa Website. Look it up.

  • Shondeferous-INGShondeferous-ING Posts: 1 ✭✭

    a Wayspot is 'accessible' if anyone (or at least one person?) can access the Wayspot, safely

    Is there any wayspot in the entire world that would be determined as not accessible by "at least one person"? Could the Chernobyl Elephant's Foot be removed were it a wayspot, or could that be safely accessed if you have the right protective gear?

  • Bloondie-INGBloondie-ING Posts: 35 ✭✭

    @Hosette-ING why was the Enlightened able to take down Drawbridge? With your rationale that any portal that can be accessible by NPS somehow makes it valid, wouldn’t they be able to access Drawbridge? Crossing the train tracks somehow made that an invalid portal because someone determined there was no safe pedestrian access because train tracks are dangerous to cross (???), but traveling through a closed county, closed by the Department of Health because it is a Leper Colony, somehow is determined to have safe pedestrian access?? Not even taking into account the perils of getting there, where they have no medical facilities available to the public and their phone system is failing, and it is CLOSED INDEFINITELY to the general public, and has been for over three years. But crossing train tracks is a valid reason to remove a portal. A county closed by the Department of Health vs. train tracks. Pffft

  • Bloondie-INGBloondie-ING Posts: 35 ✭✭

    @29andCounting-PGO To the trail. The county is still closed. Read the first alert.

  • Bloondie-INGBloondie-ING Posts: 35 ✭✭

    Under Safety, on their website, it says: “There are SIGNIFICANT SAFTEY RISKS when visiting Kalaupapa and no medical facilities.” How is that considered safe pedestrian access? Oh, and the county is CLOSED.

  • Hosette-INGHosette-ING Posts: 3,303 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited April 11

    @Bloondie-ING You keep confusing the town of Kalaupapa with the lighthouse. Accessing the lighthouse can be done without ever using the Kalaupapa Trail or going into the town of Kalaupapa.

    You are aware that the Moloka'i Lighthouse is an active light station, yes? That strongly suggests that someone is able to access it to perform routine and emergency maintenance. I would bet large sums of money that someone from NPS has access to the lighthouse because it would be dangerous to have an active navigational aid that could not be maintained. Also, NPS owns the land.

    There's also something that you are overlooking-- people live in the town of Kalaupapa. They do not need a permit to be in the county and they do not have to hike the Kalaupapa Trail because they're already in town. Have you determined whether the residents of the town are permitted to go to the lighthouse? It's certain that residents could access the two wayspots in the town itself so those would not be candidates for removal.

    As for "There are SIGNIFICANT SAFTEY RISKS..." there are also significant safety risks involved when climbing mountains to get to wayspots, or hiking through the wilderness to get to them, and there are no medical facilities on mountain peaks. That doesn't make those wayspots invalid, just challenging.

    I've shown you that Niantic has rejected this argument twice already (November 2021 and January 2022), and once restored the lighthouse after it was accidentally deleted. What do you think has changed since those rejections?

  • Mirthmaker-INGMirthmaker-ING Posts: 44 ✭✭

    Why on earth should anyone willingly WANT to be in a Hansen's Disease colony in the first place???

  • Bloondie-INGBloondie-ING Posts: 35 ✭✭

    There is not one Ingress player that can legally access that Portal, and it has been that way for years. I don’t think that is in the spirit of the game to have a portal that is completely inaccessible by those playing the game. Portals have been taken down for less reasons than have been shown here. It’s that simple. The only reason it still up is because it is used to block our access to Hawaii from the West Coast of the US. If we owned that portal and did the same thing, they would’ve had that portal down along time ago. Drawbridge was taken down for a lot less reasons. Period.

  • Bloondie-INGBloondie-ING Posts: 35 ✭✭

    @Hosette-ING Your comment “This combines with Niantic's rule that safe pedestrian access means that someone has to be able to access the portal…” is again, not accurate. If that was true, Drawbridge would not have been removed. “Safe pedestrian access” means what it says. And the lighthouse is no longer accessible by pedestrians.

  • Bloondie-INGBloondie-ING Posts: 35 ✭✭

    There are no Ingress Agents that have legal and safe access to that lighthouse any longer. That is not a portal that should be in the game if no agent can access it.

  • NitrousBlue-INGNitrousBlue-ING Posts: 9 ✭✭

    i think you missed the point that the lighthouse is in the National Park that is closed to all. (not just ingress agents)

  • HankWolfman-PGOHankWolfman-PGO Posts: 4,305 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Workers are still permitted to be there, otherwise they wouldn't have been advertising a job vacancy in the area. It would make absolutely no sense to advertise a job at a location if the location was literally inaccessible to everyone.

    Unless you can somehow provide proof that someone working there isn't allowed to physically be there to do a job that requires them to be there in person... In which case I look forward to your explanation of that :)

  • 29andCounting-PGO29andCounting-PGO Posts: 1,881 ✭✭✭✭✭

    So someone other than Pokémon go players are attempting to manipulate the game board to improve their game. Haha. Classic. (Just to point out though, when Pokémon players attempt to manipulate the game board it’s because they want more points added, not less)

Sign In or Register to comment.