Wayspot is on private property - clearly marked with signs
SpareRIP-ING
Posts: 10 ✭✭
Title of the Wayspot: Alte Mühle
Location: 51.56273085932103, 7.503159500601863
City: Dortmund
Country: Germany
Screenshot of the Rejection Email:
Photos to support your claim:
Additional information:
This portal is located on a private property. The first, white "Privat (private)" sign is already set up well before the Old Mill, at the yellow-marked spot on the map. There is another yellow sign in front of the mill which clearly prohibits entry (Privatgrundstück Betreten verboten = private property - no entry!).
Tagged:
Comments
Unless the Mill is a single family private residence it doesn't matter that it's private property. Is it a house or business?
It is a private property, no business.
There are plenty of Waypoints that rightly exist on private property. That doesn't inherently disqualify them.
For a Waypoint to be removed from private property, there needs to be more justification than just that it is on private property. Even on multi unit residential properties they are permitted to exist. Your pictures are, in my view, insufficient. The map photo appears to have multiple buildings and parking. I could be wrong but that would suggest to me that it isn't a single family residence.
The problem is, to come near that portal, you have to enter a private street. You get threatened with police, when you come near and are not connected with the people living there.
I think it's a business:
The vans present on the grounds (a truck is also visible on Bing's birdeye view) and the bars on the windows of the bigger building would suggest it as well. But sometimes a building like that is also a residence (like with B&B's).
I understand your reasoning in the case of a residential complex where, for example, pedestrians are allowed to use paths on private property. In this case, I clearly see it differently.
The owner of the property explicitly forbids me to enter his property where the spot is located.
If I do so, it is a criminal offence - "Hausfriedensbruch" based § 123 StGB ("Strafgesetzbuch")
This offence does not care if it is a business, private property single or private property with multiple buildings. If the owner does not allow me to enter his property than i am not allowed by law.
Furthermore, the property is fenced except for the driveway, which is also a clear sign that the owner does not want me to enter it. the only open space is clearly marked with the yellow sign.
To the houses: You can see on the picture, that there is only one trashbin for each purpose in front of the house. Blue for paper, yellow for recycling, black for residual waste. From this it is easy to deduce that only one party resides here.
The smaller House next to the old mill is sized like a garage.
In addition to that i would like to point out the reasonings i can see on wayfarer (unfortunately only in german on my site, but i translate).
"Vorschläge und Änderungen können vollständig abgelehnt werden, wenn mindestens eines der folgenden Ablehnungskriterien erfüllt ist:
Unzulässiger/s Ort oder Objekt
Ort ist ein Privatgrundstück (gilt auch für historische Gebäude)"
"Proposals and amendments may be rejected in full if at least one of the following rejection criteria is met:
Unacceptable site(s) or object(s)
Place is a private property (also applies to historic buildings)"
@SpareRIP-ING In Wayfarer guidelines, it is not relevant that you specifically (or another part of a larger community) cannot reach a Wayspot. If, for example, the workers from 'Aringhoff-Linnemann' or their visitors can reach that place, I don't think it falls under removal criteria.
That company was liquidated in 2018:
Furthermore in one picture you can see 3 german trash cans with the typical size for single party households. If more than one party would be living there the trash cans would be either bigger or each party had its own set of bins.
And due to the clear signs you cannot reach that waypoint without trespassing.
I disagree: "Muss für Fußgänger sicher und öffentlich zugänglich sein (drinnen oder draußen)"
"Must be safe for pedestrians and publicly accessible (indoors or outdoors)"
Yes, I did notice the garbage containers too, that's typical for a residence but not unheard of. But I find the two vans in the recent photo and the bars on the window remarkable for a single family. Also, the small retractable stairs towards the front door (which, then again, looks like a residential house door).
Wished the photo showed less shrubs, but as you can't enter the grounds properly, it's tricky to see.
I find the discussion really interesting that it does not address the fact that trespassing is a criminal offence, nor that the point is clearly against Wayfarer guidelines (which I have quoted here).
One last piece of information (I'd hate to be in Niantic's shoes on this one :) ):
Googling the address yields a single name from a site called "Das Örtliche".
And @SpareRIP-ING : In my opinion, that's how a discussion about a Wayspot should be: without concern for which game it's meant, or how many people can reach it, or what law someone breaks if they choose to go there. In this case, it's only the Ingress players who are affected. The Pokemon players happily reach the spot from the public street.
Still not agreeing on the 'private grounds' opinion though. As @AlexMTG-PGO and @Faversham71-ING pointed out: a Wayspot can exist on private grounds, as long as a part of the public can reach it (for example, workers at a company, or guests of a private holiday resort).
No problem, then we agree to disagree ;-)
But could you quote or link your source? I do not find anything in the wayfarer criteria supporting your argumentation.
I am happy to "accept" if this spot is in line with the criteria, but i see no evidence.
But if the private property owner clearly forbids the access it is also not reachable as part of the public (only if he allowes).
Check out this AMA: https://community.wayfarer.nianticlabs.com/discussion/10321/november-ama-your-questions-answered/p1
Niantic listed private property as the first criteria clarification and then followed up on that with noting that waypoints are not required to be publically accessible to all, such as member-only areas being fine.
Just because a Waypoint exists that doesn't mean you have a right to access it.
@SpareRIP-ING
From the November 2020 AMA:
"How does “publicly accessible” apply to locations that have limited access, like members-only clubs, gated communities, time-restricted areas?
I DO agree that the help text line you quoted makes no mention of this and is kind of misinformative.
Thank you very much for sharing.
Due to the fact that accessing it is forbidden by law the explanation supports my argumentation.
No - accessing it is not forbidden by law - unauthorised access is forbidden by law. Providing some people can access it e.g. assuming it's a business - employees then it would be a valid wayspot.
There is no evidence that this is a business.
In addition to that the AMA question above the linked one gives clear guidance.
Can you clarify the definition of “private residential property?” Are multi-family residences included in this rejection reason? What about Wayspots that are within 40m of a private residence?
Its a tricky one without evidence either way - basically if it's a single family private residence it's invalid, if it's a business it isn't. It clearly has been a business in the past.
There is no company registered at this adress. Neither in the german company register nor on google maps.
Last entry of a company was liquidated 5 years ago.
There is no company sign or similar at the spot.
There is a private person registered in das Örtliche on this adress: https://www.dasoertliche.de/Themen/Schaffran-Thomas-Dortmund-Kirchderne-Gr%C3%BCggelsort
What would give you more evidence?
It's not my decision thankfully.
I think, maybe next time when I am there, I will just use the door bell and ask for clarity. Because I really don't like that spot.
I was there just today and was kindly asked to leave that property by a man who was passing by to the mill and who most likely lives there. He said it's private and that I should leave. I am just sick of intruding other people's privacy, but I have to go there because the other faction forces me to. They chose this playground and I have to react or let them do their thing. I try to be as unobtrusive as possible but I think that doesn't work because usually there are no foreign persons .
That's the only reason I take part in this conversation. I personally feel uncomfortable because it's obvious that the people living there chose this particular place to live in peace and lonesomeness. And then they notice that they are visited 2-4 times a day by some shady random guys who farm portal keys and they don't know what's going on.
So we have finally found the reason why you want this wayspot removed: because the other faction uses it and you can't access it.
Because the other faction uses it without the (single family property) owners consent, yes. I think he is more annoyed by the RES coming there frequently to farm keys, than other guys coming there sporadically to tear it down / flip it. I don’t have to visit this spot because an other anchor is near my climbing gym. I was there once to investigate the situation with the private property and I agree with the other agents.
If no one would use this portal, it would most likely not be relevant to post an appeal here.
The bars on the ground floor are typical protection against burglars if you live somewhere remote in Germany. Even our old neighbors across the street have some.
I think with the German phone book mentioning a single family name for this address, the liquidation note of the company there and the trash bins for a single party, there is enough evidence.
What other possibility is there to provide more proof? Ring the bell of the owner, then show him why people are trespassing his property on Intel and Scanner, and then film a video interview with consent by him to post here, that he does not want this?
This kinda seems absurd and awkward, but would be the next logical step 🙄
In this case no part of the public can reach it, only the single resident.
It used to be a mill but has been converted into a private residence. The bars in front of the windows might be just to protect the historic building from any form of trespassing.
As you rightly point out, the public phone directory only lists a single name and number (no company) for this address.
No. Both factions can access the waypoint and do so equally but I don't like this spot because we are heavily bothering the the residents there. That's the reason why I am participating in this argument.
tldr: I just got confirmation talking to a RES player that this IS single family private residential property.
We have a quite close cycle at the moment and this field is one of the key fields which is built often. One of the last CP was matching the closing hours of my rock climbing / bouldering gym near the other anchor, so I went there this evening. I even had to update my scanner app, as I don’t play much anymore. As anticipated, RES started to build the field again. So for the CP, I went to the anchor near my gym which already showed a beacon. As feared, I could not flip it as it was immunized, also shields were deployed again. I missed the CP, so I dumped fireworks while waiting until I could at least flip before returning home.
The RES player came out to thank for the nice fireworks, and we talked casually as I had not met this player before. I also changed the topic to the old mill, and she told me that an older man is living there, taking care of his disabled wife. They also have a dog, but it is harmless.
She told me that he does not mind them going their private road in daytime and on foot, as long as they don’t trespass onto the mill property. (That’s exactly close enough to deploy, hack and flip, but not use bursters and ultra strikes effectively).
The old man even got spooked once because a player came up to the house at night and looked into the windows, the Res player told me. We agreed that this is not acceptable behavior.
Why is this story relevant? She confirmed to me that it’s a single family residential property, which makes this Wayspot ineligible.
Please remove this wayspot from the network, so that this man she told me about can live there with his wife in peace. There are more than enough other wayspots to use in the area.
Here’s at least some proof this encounter happened, of course I was not wiretapped like a real agent to secretly record this conversation 😉
Thanks for the appeal, @SpareRIP-ING. Due to insufficient evidence, we’re unable to take action on the Wayspot in question. If you have additional evidence to share like photospheres/articles, please submit a new appeal with additional information and we’ll take another look.
Hearing someone say it's a residence isn't the proof Niantic is looking for..
@SpareRIP-ING There could be instances that keep track of building usage (like house pricing sites, brokers or city documentation/archives). Maybe you can find some documentation about this place somewhere.