Wayspot object removed

Title: Welkom op Eiland van Maurik

Location: https://intel.ingress.com/?pll=51.967925,5.409731

City: Maurik

County: The Netherlands

Screenshot of the rejection email:

Photo's to support your claim (Including new youtube linked video)

Youtube video: https://youtu.be/bKUod5htUhc?feature=shared

In this video you will see the surroundings and someone was friendly enough to mark the old location of the sign.



Tagged:

Comments

  • Jeroenix-INGJeroenix-ING Posts: 402 ✭✭✭✭

    @justmeister-ING On your previous thread about this Wayspot (where it was found to not meet the removal criteria) there's this signpost visible. The same as the one at 0:40 in the video posted on this thread.

    What's on that signpost? I ask this, because obviously the small island itself is the Wayspot, and signs serve as a good GPS anchor for them.

  • justmeister-INGjustmeister-ING Posts: 110 ✭✭✭

    It's funny since when do you like a signpost? That's a traffic signs for marine traffic/boats, and has nothing to do with this portal. Its a pity that its not on private grounds this time huh

  • Jeroenix-INGJeroenix-ING Posts: 402 ✭✭✭✭

    Agreed, PRP Wayspots would not motivate people to explore, but this island would. You seemed to have a good time with it.

    What I mean is: if it's interesting enough, it could serve as GPS anchor for that place (and if it's on the same spot). As I said: I think the island is regarded as the Wayspot, not the sign. Otherwise, NIA would've removed it in your other thread about this.

    But you pointed your camera to the ground only in the vid, so I can't make it out.

  • justmeister-INGjustmeister-ING Posts: 110 ✭✭✭

    We are not talking about a traffic sign thing here. We are discussing a custom made sign that represents this wayspot: the small island itself is not that. BTW - Eiland van Maurik marks the area, and to be more specific, the holiday park and not this nameless isle. https://www.eilandvanmaurik.nl/en for more information and yes, it has a lot of real wayspots. But nothing like this plate lol.

  • Th3Cardinal-INGTh3Cardinal-ING Posts: 16 ✭✭

    This is clearly not the sign as depicted in the photos of the portal, nor is it the location in which the sign is.


    Also, the small island is not the wayspot itself, at least that is not made clear. The portal name is the text of the sign that was put up there, not the island itself.


    If the island itself is the wayspot, it should be removed as well, as it's just a generic piece of land with no special significance whatsoever.

  • Jeroenix-INGJeroenix-ING Posts: 402 ✭✭✭✭

    No significance? As the OP pointed out with the URL, this entire entire area is a recreational place for tourists.

    Niantic said it didn't meet removal criteria once already in the thread below, and since there's little additional evidence in the video that the photos didn't show already I suspect they think otherwise about the island.

    I wonder how many more threads will be started about this one Wayspot. Or rather, portal, as the OP called it.

    https://community.wayfarer.nianticlabs.com/discussion/51135/wayspot-object-removed/p1

  • Agent0493-INGAgent0493-ING Posts: 20 ✭✭✭
    edited February 14

    Ok.. so just change the portal name to eiland van Maurik and everything is Gucci? I think it is a nice spot for recreation when you're out on the water with your boat.

  • wurstdufromage-INGwurstdufromage-ING Posts: 15 ✭✭

    Just to be sure. Your argument here comes down to: “It isn’t abuse because we have always abused the system and abuse is inherent to the system”?

    Following that logic to its natural conclusion we could expect people from all sorts of games starting to just put things in parks, forests, anywhere because “Niantic doesn’t care about random people decorating areas”.

    I am not sure that is the precedent we want to set.

  • justmeister-INGjustmeister-ING Posts: 110 ✭✭✭

    So when removal, because an island on itselves cannot be a wayspot (natural feature thing) and sign is just gone. Maybe the players made a new sign, and regarding the huge amount of mosaik tiles that got removed shouldn't allow this sign to exist as a wayspot. Niantic... Lol

  • Jeroenix-INGJeroenix-ING Posts: 402 ✭✭✭✭

    @wurstdufromage-ING I have no idea how you came to that strange conclusion. I have never said, nor endorsed, that the system is abused inherently and that this is OK. I am giving counter arguments, and you can agree or disagree with them. Saying something is abuse doesn't make it so, until Niantic says so, THEN I will agree and adjust. But out of curiousity: of what exact part of my post did you misjudge this? The part about things 'only being eligible if the authorities endorse them' (of which I still claim it untrue)? Or the fact that something on an island can be a Wayspot (which I still believe can, especially in a recreational area like that)?

    @justmeister-ING 'Natural feature thing' has ceased to be a rejection criterion. NIA relaxed that rule since Wayfarer took OPR's place. Of course that doesn't apply to every tree, it still needs some form of exploration/tourism/historical/etc. merit. Apparantly, reviewers approved this island/sign.

    And "sign is just gone" is actually the opposite of what Lynnsane said in this thread; they claimed "the group of wayfinders have since replaced the sign". Or someone else. I doubt Lynnsane was there when it was 'ordered'.

  • justmeister-INGjustmeister-ING Posts: 110 ✭✭✭

    Your arguments are invalid. How hard is it to accept that a player made sign is gone?

  • Jeroenix-INGJeroenix-ING Posts: 402 ✭✭✭✭

    "Your arguments are invalid", and that settles it then? :) No, it's not that easy.

    Since Niantic already said the Wayspot does not meet removal criteria in your first thread, the real question is: how hard is it for YOU to accept that?

  • Sende115-INGSende115-ING Posts: 22 ✭✭
    edited February 19

    Maybe read Niantic's response again before starting to point fingers at someone else? "We took another look at the Wayspot in question and decided that it does not meet our criteria for removal at this time." The main reason this Wayspot was brought up again is because new evidence that the sign was actually gone at the time of writing was provided after Niantic's reply, and Niantic seemingly has not made any effort to review said evidence and to further evaluate if there is a valid reason to remove this Wayspot.

    Speculations that it could be submerged did not help in the decision making process, and if you take a closer look at the pictures it's clear that the blue-ish sign is in the exact same place as some of the other pictures (as could be seen by the boulder on the left hand side, so this could be an older picture that was upvoted by users as they might've liked it more than the previous one (which if memory serves me correctly also displayed the letters ENL out of loose stones below the sign)).

    Given the fact that this Wayspot is basically just a sign on a random isle, on sort of private property (as it is owned by a company called Uit®waarde (https://www.uiterwaarde.nl/recreatieparken/eiland-van-maurik/) and has rules in place that state access is forbidden between 22:00 and 6:00 between May 1st and October 1st , and half an hour after sunset and sunrise on any day not in the window stated earlier (https://www.uiterwaarde.nl/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Gebiedsverordening-Eiland-van-Maurik.pdf article 5).

    Also to add is that the isle is located in the area designated for high-speed maritime traffic (stated here:https://www.uiterwaarde.nl/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Folder-Eiland-van-Maurik.pdf) which could pose danger for people attempting to reach this Wayspot by (inflatable) rafts / canoes and similar.

  • Jeroenix-INGJeroenix-ING Posts: 402 ✭✭✭✭

    Hi @Sende115-ING, I was kinda expecting you :)

    I don't have to 'read the response again' because the wording "We took another look at the Wayspot in question and decided that it does not meet our criteria for removal at this time." is a standard phrase they use on each and every declined appeal such as this one, for years! I've read it many times.

    Hey, but.. you should know this, because.. remember when you were trying to get rid of a legitimate Wayspot in my city? They used the exact same phrase to decline your appeal to remove it. Let me quote it for you:

    "Hey, @Sende115-ING! We took another look at the Wayspot in question and decided that it does not meet our criteria for removal at this time."

    Read it back at https://community.wayfarer.nianticlabs.com/discussion/43668/invalid-wayspot-appeal-wayspot-on-locked-courtyard


    And.. what fingers am I pointing, by the way? I was asked the question "how hard it was to accept it's gone" while I (and more players) think otherwise. Actually, I think the Island itself has merit as a Wayspot as I've already said. This thread hasn't provided any new information since the appeal-to-remove was declined in another thread, and serves only to attract attention a second time.

    Oh, and.. are you sure you want to claim here that this island is "sort of private property"? Next you'll be claiming it hinders emergency services :)

  • justmeister-INGjustmeister-ING Posts: 110 ✭✭✭

    Why are you lying about "no new evidence has been provided"? Did you even check out the pictures and video? The video is new and so is that picture.

    So yes, I am still waiting for that Niantic employee that does what has to be done (I guess repeating the phrase again and confirming that they are faction biased)

  • Jeroenix-INGJeroenix-ING Posts: 402 ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 20

    The only new thing between the threads is is that the images were moving rather than still shots, showing the same thing, so no I don't think you brought anything new, just another thread about the same Wayspot. Having a different opinion is a far cry from 'lying' by the way.

    And faction bias, well.. let's see. It's claimed:

    • - it's removed
    • - it wasn't real
    • - the area is flooded (again, in 2023 lots of areas got flooded!)
    • - it's unreachable (despite Justmeister going there twice and presence of a recreational marina nearby)
    • - it's "not endorsed by authorities" (which was never a criterion)
    • - it's a "natural feature thing" (lol!)
    • - it's PRP! (my favorite, thanks for that Sende115)

    All claimed by people in the same faction who apparantly want it gone so badly.. Well gee, would you think there's faction bias involved?

    You've all made so many claims, you're now starting to contradict yourselves. You say "Its a pity that its not on private grounds this time huh", your teammate calls it on "sort of private property". You say the sign is gone, your teammate says "it's been replaced". I'm still waiting for someone to claim it's on hopital grounds :)

    So yes, faction bias I can believe. Next time you're there, use your bursters. Way more fun.

    Post edited by Jeroenix-ING on
  • justmeister-INGjustmeister-ING Posts: 110 ✭✭✭

    - it's removed

    - it wasn't real

    it's a "natural feature thing" (lol!)


    Yep, it's all in the video and pictures. Lol. I'm not even joking about it.

  • Jeroenix-INGJeroenix-ING Posts: 402 ✭✭✭✭

    But most importantly: "does not meet removal criteria" as Niantic stated in the previous thread.

  • Thanks for the appeal, @justmeister-ING. After reviewing the additional evidence provided, we’ve decided to retire the Wayspot in question.

Sign In or Register to comment.