Live in Wayfarer 3.1 is a new set of acceptance criteria! Please browse the information in this category with caution as it is in reference to the previous review guidelines. To learn more about the new criteria, see here: https://niantic.helpshift.com/a/wayfarer/
Usage of restricted military and industrial areas for waypoints
C0MM0D0R3-ING
Posts: 18 ✭✭✭
Dear Niantic Ops,
since there are a lot of disputes related to this topic, please explain when and if it is acceptable to use a restricted military or industrial area for waypoint candidates.
Thank you very much in advance!
#military #industrial #restricted
Answers
Reject all new nominations located on military bases. Niantic made that abundantly clear in multiple AMAs. However, existing Wayspots on military bases will not be removed unless they meet the removal criteria.
No additional Waypoints should be added to a Military Base. If you see any in wayfarer they should be rejected 1* for obstructing emergency services. A good tool to reference is https://ingressama.com/search?q=Military where you can search keywords such as Military. This is a list of all previous AMA Responses.
The one most pertinent to your question is:
August 2019:
Q68: When voting on military base portals are we supposed to vote 1* on new portals at bases? I was under the impression that grandfathered portals are fine but do not sumbit new ones? This topic has been a highly debated issue in the portal appeals threads lately. Just asking for clarification for the community.
A68: Yes. The current guidance is to one star all new Portals on military bases. This supersedes any sub-category of eligibility like gathering places, exercise equipment, etc.
Not really, because more and more new waypoints of this kind are being created. And they won’t be removed. A clear rule would help.
As far as I know AMA was only for Ingress players. Right?
While the AMAs were questions asked by Ingress Players the decisions made related to Wayfarer/OPR are valid for all players and still hold true today. This has been confirmed by NianticOps.
The AMA clarifications apply to all.
Ok... than there is a question why Niantic rejects to remove those which have been created after August 2019...
Niantic will remove them if the Property owners requests their removal. Otherwise Niantics stance is they are allowed to remain as its not a specific removal criteria likes K12 Schools would be.
Because Niantic only removes Wayspots that meet the removal criteria. They will not remove Wayspots that simply do not meet the acceptance criteria.
Industrial areas can have some places that have converted to commerical areas locally by the local government. I know a few locations like this. Same with former military bases that have been shutdown and are now commerical areas. These areas should be eligible as far as I know. The historic buildings in these areas should be approved even though they aren't pretty they are still historic.
Ok... Thank you all, but my intention was to get a clear answer from Niantic Ops regarding RESTRICTED military and industrial areas.
@NianticBrian-ING
There has been a very clear answer from Niantic already posted in this thread. What exactly do you want clarified? What about the current ruling has not been made clear?
If you want guidance from the Wayfarer criteria page
Nominations whose real-world location appears to obstruct the driveways of emergency services
This includes anywhere that may interfere with the operations of fire stations, police stations, hospitals, military bases, industrial sites, power plants, or air traffic control towers.
I read all this AMAs. But the point is that players in our area keep creating new waypoints on the military bases with restricted access and on industrial areas with restricted access. Somehow these candidates get approved by whom ever even they violate the rule. These waypoints are
1.) on the private property
2.) on the areas which are excluded by submission policy via above mentioned AMA as per NianticOps
However all removal appeals are keep being rejected by Niantic Ops.
I understand that waypoints created in the past, before this AMA was published, remain valid, but as I understand this doesn’t apply to those created after the appearance of the AMA. So what does make these waypoints valid?!
It's basically just a grandfather clause.
Restricted access locations such as industrial areas don't negate a valid waypoint location. As long as someone has access to it, it could be eligible provided it meets some criteria. Here is an AMA response that helps explain this.
November 2018:
Q50: How is Niantic addressing portals and then fields made from restricted access portals? Many agents have quit and slowed down play, especially newer ones because of these large fields that can't be dropped, and needing to wait for the faction who put them up, to take them down. Do you consider such portals within the spirit of the game?
A50: I’m not sure I understand the question. Restricted or limited access Portals may be valid Portals if they meet the criteria of a Portal. There is not a requirement that every person be able to access a Portal. Both factions utilize these types of Portals globally and they have been part of the game since earliest days. Therefore, I don’t find them against the spirit of the game.
Edit: A second AMA Response related to this topic.
Q1: Why are portals on private property allowed? Private corporations, military bases, etc. are content that an average agent is completely unable to access that can directly affect their gameplay with control fields covering them or links blocking them. They should not have to play at a disadvantage.
A1: Portals on corporate property are allowed because restricted access is not the same as private residential access. The people that can access portals on corporate grounds are doing so legally as they have access to the location. It would however, be considered trespassing in many areas of the world for anyone other than the property owner to access a Portal on private residential property. What you are referring to as a disadvantage is normalized globally.
Nothing 'makes them valid'. They should not have been approved.
Niantic have however taken the baffling decision not to accept 'shouldn't have been approved' as a removal reason.
Because people would use that to removed Wayspots that falls under one or more of the subjective categories (i.e. local attractions and hidden gems, cool pieces of art or unique architecture, and locations with a cool story, a place in history, or educational value). In other words, we would have endless arguments (more than it is now) over what is art, what is a generic business, and what is of historical or cultural value.
Thank you community
I understand now
For the topic of validity of the waypoints created violating rules in force, I'll create a dedicated appeal.
I was confused on this too because the latest guidance according to this was to 1* only if it interferes with the operations of military bases. So people were taking that as a green light to nominate things on bases that dont interfere with military operations. They even mentioned in one AMA that military base guidance is subject to change basically and that theres past present and future guidance. Thus, is what yall are quoting past guidance and this "that may interfere guidance" the present and current guidance?
What people are ignoring. "This includes anywhere that may interfere with the operations of fire stations, police stations, hospitals, military bases, industrial sites, power plants, or air traffic control towers."
Operations.... Does the way spot allow someone that works at these places to be delayed doing their job by spinning a pokestop or taking a portal. Easiest way i can explain this to people. Hopefully it helps.
As a resistance agent I surely don't like these portals in military bases that are often used by ENL to build fields. And of course I do appreciate those that are used by my own faction. In any way I can deal with ENL occupied portals in whatever area. And I am sure any well playing ENL agent can deal with those portals usually owned by resistance. That is the spirit of the game that one has to overcome any advantage of the other faction by fair means. Of course I recognize that portals are coming live, that do not obey the Wayfarer rules. Mostly this us because of careless investigation by us wayfarers. For example we just got a new portal in Köln Wahn military base today:
This should never have been come to live, because it is clearly within a military base. But now it is there and I really do not care about reporting it. I believe some ENL player wanted that spot as a new portal near his working area. Would that affect my game experiencecin any way. Should I complain about this portal? I do not know, why I should do.
Wayspots affect more than just ingress. We should only be rejecting things that are not eligible. Not because you feel the other team may have an advantage over others. You should yes report things in areas that are specifically listed as effecting EMS.
Yes, of course. But since NIA does not take down post-AMA portals in military bases, I do not see any reason to report it. I just read above, that @C0MM0D0R3-ING would do portal appeals in such cases. So perhaps he would like to file a invalid portal appeal for that new portal in Köln Wahn. But that may be something different from reporting it as invalid from the scanner.
Disclaimer: I don't play pgo, so my nomenclatura is strictly ing. Sorry, I do not know other.