Removal Appeal: Avion grupo Abastecimiento
queimporta-ING
Posts: 6 ✭✭
Title of the Wayspot: Avion grupo Abastecimiento
Location: -33.565003,-70.695111
City: El Bosque, Santiago
Country: Chile
Screenshot of the Rejection Email: [Attach Screenshot]
Photos to support your claim: Military area boundaries and street view of the gate that shows **** militia
Additional information: The Waypost "Avion grupo Abastecimiento" is located within a militar area with restricted access and it goes against the valid portal criteria, i reported it via ingame menus but the removal request was rejected
official website of militia air force: www.escueladeespecialidades.cl
Tagged:
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
1. A point of interest (POI) is requested at a location that the wayfarer guide clearly indicates should not be requested.
2. There have been international legal problems against Niantic for POI situations on military land.
3. The marker is placed far away from the real object that besides being ineligible, is located in a sector that favors a player, another clearly specific rule in the wayfarer guidelines.
***
Please @NianticAaron could you review this
1. A point of interest (POI) is requested at a location that the wayfarer guide clearly indicates should not be requested.
2. There have been international legal problems against @niantic for POI situations on military land.
3. The marker is placed far away from the real object that besides being ineligible, is located in a sector that favors a player, another clearly specific rule in the wayfarer guidelines.
***
added another image to support my appeal
link to street view of the gate marked on the screenshot and from i got my first post image: https://goo.gl/maps/5erceefd8aJqjwV77
@NianticGiffard please consider this removal appeal
Again? I though this one had already been looked at by Niantic and retained.
This is the fist post i've made about this waypost. I'm not sure if it was reported before but what I'm confident about is that this waypost breaks all the rules about nomination criteria as its located inside a military area
The eligibility criteria and removal criteria are separate from one another. You cannot use the former to justify the removal of a Wayspot that doesn't meet the latter.
I don't know how wayfarer community approved it but i can appeal to a removal rejection with enough fundaments like I'm presenting here.
- inaccesible
- inside military boundaries
- next to a militar airport
inaccesible
The Wayspot is accessible to those with authorization to be on the base. There is also no requirement for a Wayspot to be accessible to everyone. And finally, accessibility is not part of the removal criteria.
inside military boundaries
As stated before, this itself is not part of the removal criteria. While reviewers are previously instructed to reject Wayspots on military bases, Niantic is content with leaving existing Wayspots in place unless the base's CO or duly appointed representative requests the removal through the support websites.
next to a militar airport
Being at or near an airport is itself not part of the removal criteria. Also the airplane on display can be reached by any authorized person without interfering with the operations of the airport. Therefore, it does not meet the removal criteria.
Additionally, I attach the regulatory plan of the municipality of El Bosque, which is in charge of administering land use and in which it is clear that this corresponds to a military base.
https://www.municipalidadelbosque.cl/plan-regulador-comuna-vigente/
From the last link that is official within the law in Chile we take the following link (second in the banners)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1J4fEZkCf6095Qk5T3_d8EaCjkwQ5TaZn/view?usp=drivesdk
The blank space is the military base, it is not near a military airport, it is inside, it has never been social, cultural or sports.
I present below the "eligibility" criteria. Let's be clear with this reading that a POI INSIDE a MILITARY AIR BASE does not qualify in any of them and therefore it is not eligible. It is the duty of the wayfinder to know them before proposing and the same is true for the reviewer. We all know what happened as the range of reviewers increased.
https://wayfarer.nianticlabs.com/help#criterios-de-elegibilidad
Now if you do not agree with my claim that we should delete this POI, I remind you that the forums are to expose situations that transgress the guidelines of the NIANTIC user terms. LET US REMEMBER that a POI IN A MILITARY BASE is not eligible, it happened in this case since the POI is new and it was accepted after the trainers started to evaluate. Now I leave you with the REJECTION criteria ( https://wayfarer.nianticlabs.com/help#criterios-de-rechazo ).
And if something should not be eligible and should be rejected but it exists, then it should be REMOVED since that is why we expose things in the forum.
We are not claiming that we removed the Pokémon spam, which also happened, we are claiming the legitimacy of a POI that was requested for the purpose of abuse and benefit of a player. (3).
Let Niantic decide. @FizzlePopVT-PGO could you remember when the POI was accepted? If it was approved after the new criteria actions should be taken against the wayfinder and the wayfarer because they accepted one that must be rejected.
I present below the "eligibility" criteria. Let's be clear with this reading that a POI INSIDE a MILITARY AIR BASE does not qualify in any of them and therefore it is not eligible. It is the duty of the wayfinder to know them before proposing and the same is true for the reviewer. We all know what happened as the range of reviewers increased.
Now if you do not agree with my claim that we should delete this POI, I remind you that the forums are to expose situations that transgress the guidelines of the NIANTIC user terms. LET US REMEMBER that a POI IN A MILITARY BASE is not eligible, it happened in this case since the POI is new and it was accepted after the trainers started to evaluate. Now I leave you with the REJECTION criteria. And if something should not be eligible and should be rejected but it exists, then it should be REMOVED since that is why we expose things in the forum.
We are not claiming that we removed the Pokémon spam, which also happened, we are claiming the legitimacy of a POI that was requested for the purpose of abuse and benefit of a player.
Source of my screenshots and my arguments.
https://wayfarer.nianticlabs.com/help#criterios-de-rechazo
https://wayfarer.nianticlabs.com/help#criterios-de-elegibilidad
You are wrong.
This POI is in a military base, this is not allowed by elegible criteria. It is not only a restricted area, I understand that some POI are not accessible to everybody; but this one is in an area of critical activities that are related to a country defense and logistics.
About remove criteria, Niantic have a removal criteria, referred to some conditions like emergency services (like this, because nature of a military base) and others (primary, secondary or elementary schools; private residence or anothers). This options can be used directly from Niantic games, so if there are portals that are invalid can be removed by Niantic, not because was accepted means that can not be removed. In other point, about wayfinders that validate invalids candidates obviously must have a consequence, but POI removal and consequence against wayfinders are separated process...
If it is not valid must be removed, this using Niantic criteria.
Han borraron portales en la pared externa de casas y de varios lugares más tras denuncias de jugadores de ingress. Si Niantic borra por estar en la pared externa de un domicilio porque no va a borrar los POI que están al interior de una base militar que está claramente especificada como categoría de rechazo? Dudo que Fuerza Aérea de Chile (FACH) haya dado permiso para la creación del POI. En cambio los murales si tienen permiso ya que demoran en hacerse y todos los murales que han borrado y siguen borrando. Si no fuera efectivo o posible eliminar un POI ya creado por error, Niantic no nos daría la chance de reportar POI.
Niantic has said before and has proved in other appeals that they will not remove military portals unless requested by the proper personnel. Niantic has also said many times that rejection criteria is not the same as removal criteria.
Hi. Do You have a link of any post please?
of what exactly?
Why can't NIANTIC delete a waypoint in a military base without the request of prope r personnel?
But can delete a waypoint in the external wall of a house (free to access by pedestrians) , even without the request from house owner?
That's not a logical reasoning because a military base it's a critical point in a country security activities, and a wall in a house has not a potential danger for any people or country
Debo agregar, Niantic borra portales en escuelas, jardines infantiles y cuarteles de bomberos (entre otros), POI que hoy existen erróneamente dentro de la red de portales, pokeparadas y mundo de Harry Potter,. Estos POI son específica Y claramente se indicados en las guías y orientaciones de wayfarer como "rechazo". Y oír otro lado no borra un POI dentro de una base militar que también dice no debe crearse como POI. NO CUADRA la lógica. Vuelvo a Retirar la lógica no es lógica.
Si se aplica el no borrar el POI porque el general de la base no lo ha pedido, a la larga seguiremos yendo a la guardia a pedir acceso y en los libros de registro reportarán a seguridad una investigación que a la larga podría ser más riesgosa para la Niantic tal como sucedió en otros países.
Lo que no debe crearse debe borrarse, por eso tenemos formularios y acceso en los juegos para reportar, y si existen los formularios y este foro es porque se reconoce que el proceso debe perfeccionarse. Pero si nos van a pedir que los dueños reporten, porque borran murales sin que los dueños reporten? Tengo titulo de propiedad de una residencia con mural en su pared externa y que denunciaron desde INGRESS. Entonces no veo lógica que borren sin la autorización del dueño en "algunos casos" y cae dentro de la misma lógica ya mencionada, que el dueño debe reportar. Jamás podríamos borrar POI en jardines infantiles o escuelas ya que éstos encargados, directores, docentes y apoderados desconocen el mundo de juegos de R+, así mismo como los generales o jefes de bases aéreas no tienen idea de NIANTIC con suerte concoen Pokémon.
Es imperante que sea una solicitud pareja. Así como el reporte de sectores viciados y manipulados con POI a menos de 5 metros los unos de otros.
Este POI "avión grupo de abastecimiento" debe borrarse bajo toda lógica. Su existencia afecta en todos los juegos ya que modifica la celda para todos los juegos y nos vemos afectados por un POI que es ilegalmente ubicado y solicitado como tal.
**************
I should add, Niantic deletes portals in schools, kindergartens and fire stations (among others), POI that today mistakenly exist within the network of portals, pokeparadas and Harry Potter world,. These POI are specifically and clearly indicated in the wayfarer guidelines and orientations as "rejection". And to hear another side does not delete a POI inside a military base that also says it should not be created as POI. It DOES NOT FIT the logic. I go back to Withdraw logic is not logic.
If not deleting the POI is applied because the base general has not asked for it, in the long run we will still go to the guard to ask for access and in the log books they will report to security an investigation which in the long run could be more risky for Niantic as it happened in other countries.
What should not be created should be deleted, that is why we have forms and in-game access to report, and if the forms and this forum exist it is because it is recognized that the process needs to be refined. But if we are going to ask the owners to report, why do you delete murals without the owners reporting? I have a property title of a residence with a mural on its external wall that was denounced by INGRESS. So I don't see the logic of erasing without the owner's authorization in "some cases" and it falls within the same logic already mentioned, that the owner must report. We could never delete POI in kindergartens or schools because these managers, directors, teachers and parents do not know the world of R+ games, just as the generals or heads of air bases have no idea of NIANTIC with luck they know Pokémon.
It is imperative that it is an even application. As well as the report of flawed and manipulated sectors with POI less than 5 meters from each other.
This POI "supply group plane" must be deleted under all logic. Its existence affects all games as it modifies the cell for all games and we are affected by a POI that is illegally located and requested as such.
Aquí pueden acceder al link de la municipalidad dónde sale claramente el terreno marcado como base militar el bosque
How many times should we tell you? No matter how'd you argue against Niantic, if the Wayspot didn't meet any current removal criteria, then Niantic won't ever remove it even it shouldn't be accepted at start. And again, eligibility criteria IS NOT SAME as removal criteria.
The only way to remove them is to contact any base commander/manager to request their removal directly to Niantic, and thus prevent any newer Wayspot to be accepted in that location.
@NianticGiffard if you didn't wish to remove any of them, could you at least take action to anyone who nominate and review them? Since they nominated and reviewed those against the criteria?
Aún esperamos pronunciamiento. Pero no estoy de acuerdo contigo ;).
Hablas que no cumple con los criterios de remoción. Pero y las escuelas si? Tan solo nos dicen que no podemos pedir POI en lugares con infantes y niños. Y también nos dicen que no podamos en terrenos militares. No veo la lógica que uno si se renueva y el otro no. mbos se indican como no niminables, ambos se catalogan como rechazo. Entonces? Creo que es mejor cortar camino y al identificar un POI en terreno militar se debe eliminar rápidamente así como se hace en colegios y jardines infantiles. No veo lógica en decir que no cumple con criterio de eliminación.
Espero que @NianticAaron pueda pronunciarse. Está la prueba de que es terreno militar en la publicación, de que fue pedido antojadizamente a beneficio de un jugador. Todas razones sindicadas claramente como prohibidas.
Atentos nos despedimos
Appeal Denied - Thanks for the appeal, Agent. We took another look at the Portal in question and decided that it does not meet our criteria for removal at this time.
si bien no estoy de acuerdo con tu negación. Seguiremos motivados en su eliminación.
¿Podrían darle sanción a los creadores de éste POI?