Appeal removal: Dovercourt Lower Lighthouse
I am writing about the removal of Dovercourt Lower Lighthouse
https://intel.ingress.com/?pll=51.930090,1.278147
I have lived in Harwich/Dovercourt all my life. Harwich has played a role as a major naval port ( it was here that the German u boats surrendered at the end of the war )Being a prominent naval port meant that lighthouses were required for safe entry. Although Dovercourt lower lighthouse is over 150 years old, it and its sister lighthouse are the third pair of lighthouses to perform this role.The original wooden lighthouses from the 17th century are long gone, but their replacement brick built lighthouses are still here.
https://intel.ingress.com/?ll=51.944433,1.288527&z=18&pll=51.944433,1.288527
https://intel.ingress.com/?ll=51.943405,1.29081&z=18&pll=51.943405,1.29081
These 2 lighthouses known as high and low lighthouse were replaced in 1863 by 2 lighthouses known as the leading lights, due to the shifting sandbanks at the mouth of the bay. ( in game they are called Dovercourt lighthouse and Dovercourt lower lighthouse) Sailors would align the 2 lights in order to gain safe entry.
The Dovercourt Lighthouses are unique examples of early use of **** pile foundations, by which helix or **** bladed iron sections were driven deep into the soft ground in order to provide solid footings for the attached legs.
As a local I would take great delight in showing visiting agents the lighthouse, as explaining its history would give a valuable insight to Harwich as a whole.
Dovercourt lower lighthouse is easily and safely accessible at low tides and I often visit at these times, see attached photos.
This picture I believe was one of the pictures submitted for this portal
It shows quite clearly how safe it is to access.These websites give a more detailed description of the importance of the lighthouses
https://www.harwich-society.co.uk/maritime-heritage-trail/the-low-lighthouse/
https://harwichanddovercourt.com/outer-lighthouse.html
To conclude I think this is a valid portal and should never have been removed from the game
Ryan( Lostboy1695)





Comments
If it is only accessible by foot at low tides, then it does not have safe pedestrian access. The thing about safe pedestrian access is that it must exist 24 hours a day and not just for part of the day.
@TheFarix-PGO where on the wayfarer rules do you find that safe pedestrian access means 24 hours a day accessibility? 🤔
It's been clarified in previous AMAs that tidal related wayspots are invalid
https://community.wayfarer.nianticlabs.com/discussion/comment/30668/#Comment_30668
Both teams have accessed this safely and successfully multiple times. It's a very reasonable portal as shown in those photos.
@TheFarix-PGO I now got curious what to do with all the portals located in amusement parks or locations as museums which usually are not accessible 24x7?
That's different. Those can be safely walked up to at any time of day or night if you have access to them, which security guards or other staff still do when the place is closed to customers. Being closed does not suddenly stop there being a safe access point for the nomination. On the other hand, being intermittently submerged does remove safe access during the times where the normal access route is underwater.
@HankWolfman-PGO I don't see any difference, you do have access or not. The light house can be reached easily in a safe way on low tides. Amusement parks you only can access during opening times, some are closed during the winter season. Knowing a security guard to allow you access is basically also not legit, though you can benefit from such privileges, as closed you have no real reason to be there other than just for a game.
No, I'm not saying the security guard could give you access during closed hours. I'm saying the security guard themselves has access to it. They can still walk up to it whenever.
Not everyone has to have access to a wayspot all of the time, hence why locations in theme parks are valid. However, locations must be safely accessible on foot at all times for anyone who have valid access to them. So whilst only staff may be allowed in a theme park during closing hours, they must still be able to safely walk up to a location.
You cannot safely walk up to this lighthouse all of the time, as the access route is underwater. That's not safe. A location in a closed theme park still has a safe pathway leading up to it at all times.
You just hit the best part "Not everyone has to have access to a wayspot all of the time" that is exactly my point, we finally agree!
You are conflating pedestrian access with public access. The two are very different concepts. Public accessibility means someone with permission to access the location. Pedestrian accessibility means the ability to walk to the location without putting oneself in danger. A Wayspot does not need to be publicly accessible at all times, but it does need to have safe pedestrian access at all times. Just because you don't have permission to access it for part of the day does not mean the Wayspot loose pedestrian access.
@TheFarix-PGO No, you were. See your first reply.
Even if you don't have permission to access a Wayspot 24 hours a day doesn't mean it does not have pedestrian access for 24 hours a day. This is very different than when there is no safe pedestrian access for part of the day because the tide is in. You are the one trying to treat permission to access (public accessibility) as the same as being safe to access on foot (pedestrian access).
I wonder what color the portal was?
Remember folks,
Wayspots with limited access or can be accessed during certain period don't count as not having safe pedestrian access.
Wayspots under construction or renovation however, do count as not having safe pedestrian access no matter it still able to be accessed by public or not.
Now go report Wayspots under renovation!
Thanks for the link @Faversham71-PGO , I have never heard before that tidal wayspots had no right to exist. For example one of the places I visit is on the pier and there is a sign there that reaching it might be dangerous at unfavourable weather conditions and you need to apply your own judgement.
However, it is never closed, technically you can reach it 24/7 and on a good weekend you can see lots of people walking there.
Indeed, quite some times I needed to change my mind and get back if I saw that waves were too high but I never considered it was a valid reason for wayspot removal. Usually people are able to make the right judgement if they see that water is preventing them from reaching a place.
If we assume that because of this risk wayspots are invalid, quite many really nice to visit interesting coastal places accessible not all the time will be removed. I don't think it makes any sense.
I actually planned to visit Dovercourt Lower Lighthouse and hope I'll be able to capture a portal when I am there.
Thanks for the link @Faversham71-PGO , I have never heard before that tidal wayspots had no right to exist. For example one of the places I visit is on the pier and there is a sign there that reaching it might be dangerous at unfavourable weather conditions and you need to apply your own judgement.
However, it is never closed, technically you can reach it 24/7 and on a good weekend you can see lots of people walking there.
Indeed, quite some times I needed to change my mind and get back if I saw that waves were too high but I never considered it was a valid reason for wayspot removal. Usually people are able to make the right judgement if they see that water is preventing them from reaching a place.
If we assume that because of this risk wayspots are invalid, quite many really nice to visit interesting coastal places accessible not all the time will be removed. I don't think it makes any sense.
I actually planned to visit Dovercourt Lower Lighthouse and hope I'll be able to capture a portal when I am there.
I don't think occasional unfavourable weather conditions is quite the same as being underwater for half the day - whilst Niantic can't be expected to take complete responsibility for player's lack of judgement, tidal locations were considered too unsafe.
So many smurftears after removing 1 ENL controlled portal after the other, popcorntime.
Not a helpful comment.
I see your point @Faversham71-PGO , but in this case we should have a clear rule what time of weather conditions impacting accessibility should be enough to remove a portal: 1h per day, 1 day per month etc. In my opinion, it is not this time that really matters but how big are the chances of a fatal case or serious injury. Most piers that are also valid portals in the Netherlands and in the UK have these cases from time to time but I really doubt Dovercourt Lower Lighthouse had anything similar. Simply because if the water raises up to the knee it can hardly be dangerous, if it is up to the waist even very committed player will unlikely go there. @lostboy1695-ING do you know if there were any accidents when someone tried to reach Dovercourt Lower Lighthouse at high tide?
There may not have been incidents at that specific site but there have been incidents at other locations - hence the blanket rule.
It is not a blanket rule @Faversham71-PGO With roundabouts it is, you can hardly find them on the map, but if you look on your scanner you can see lots of wayspots on the piers, almost all of them are dangerous to visit at certain weather conditions, this one is a much safer place and a really interesting sightseeing spot. I think it is unfair to remove it just because someone complained and referred to the rule that visiting it could be dangerous while it is not.
Sometimes I also use a boat to reach some island wayspots, it is not possible at any time, tide can be quite critical, does it mean we should remove all these wayspots as well as someone may decide to take a boat when it is not the right tide?
Piers are generally fine - it's not based on the potential of adverse weather it's whether access is restricted to tides or not. I'm sure some shipwrecks still exist in the database, but if they're reported they will almost certainly be removed - wayspots that can only be reached at low tide are against Niantics rules, however interesting a sightseeing spot. Island wayspots have to have safe pedestrian access too, obviously if the island is large enough then you would be able to land and safely walk up to the wayspot, if you can't land and walk up to the wayspot then they're likely to be removed if reported.
I have lived in Harwich over 50 years and I don't know of any accidents that have happened when people try to get to the lighthouse. I myself regularly walk out there and often see families walking there too.
Thanks for your opinion. The whole story behind tidal criterium is not that portal is inaccessible at certain time, but as it was explained under the links shared, that is becomes dangerous to access at certain time, that's why it is not compared to limited access to zoos or museums.
Most of the piers have signs they might be dangerous to visit, at least in the Netherlands. Please, see the typical sign:
Landing at some islands if you come at wrong tide can be dangerous too, however, none removes these wayspots and I hope we will not go that far.
Don't take me wrong. I absolutely support all unsafe portals removal but it should be based on facts, not on some general rule that we apply from time to time.
Those are/were Niantic's rules, not mine - they may decide differently in this case, but I doubt it. Yes piers can be dangerous in extreme weather as your sign says, but not on a daily basis. As to islands I could only give my opinion on a case by case basis
What a pathetic display from a Dutch Agent.
Thanks @Faversham71-PGO , really appreciate your explanations shared and links provided. I hope NIA will reconsider this wayspot removal as it is safe and interesting to visit. In my humble opinion we should not loose these unique wayspots with historical background and add trail markers and unnamed typical bridges instead.
Rules are clear "can you safely walk to the portal 24/7"
When there is thunder or ice falling out of the sky it is unsafe to do a lot of things but in general you should be able to walk to the portal 24/7 is the guideline.
in this case you can not so it is legit removal.
if you go by boat to an island it does not say anything about the portals on the island, the question to be answerd there is " can you walk on the island? if yes> Can you safely walk up to the portal 24/7 when on the island?
thus when the portal is not 24/7 safely accessible (not taking in to account the (extreme) weather conditions) like this one it should be removed. clear @Faversham71-PGO