Invalid wayspot appeal?
Markov2097-ING
Posts: 227 ✭✭✭
In this case, I'm using the form of an appeal of a denied removal appeal, but to be honest, I had a hard time deciding, so I want to make that clear.
Title of the Wayspot:荒浜港北導流堤仮設灯台
location:https://intel.ingress.com/intel?ll=38.035176,140.926052&z=17&pll=38.035176,140.926052
City: 亘理町
Country: 日本
Screenshot of the Rejection Email:
For some reason, the spot appears to be submerged on some maps, including the one used in the game, but aerial photos show that there is a route to get there. Let's take a look at the local photo in the red frame.
The small object at the arrow is the object. To reach it, you have to go over a step of about 1.5 meters. The scaffolding is in place, but it is unstable. Nevertheless, I am sure that there is a path that can be accessed on foot. Next, there is a sign on the step.
It clearly says, "Do not enter authorized persons only.
Does this negate the AMA's statement that if there is no objection to entering a place, then it is valid? And based on this, is it considered non-walkable access? In most cases, it seems to be considered legal if even one person involved can enter...
Title of the Wayspot:住宅街の名もなき公園
location:https://intel.ingress.com/intel?ll=36.948074,140.89043&z=17&pll=36.948074,140.89043
City: いわき市
Country: 日本
Screenshot of the Rejection Email:
In this case, it is a small plaza with playground equipment at the back of a housing complex that serves as company housing for a certain company. According to the usual way of thinking, it is a common space of the housing complex, so it is not subject to deletion. However, this one also has a sign at its entrance that says "Do not enter authorized persons only.
And in this case, there are traces of actual trouble.
Apparently, the applicant for this spot is a resident, and from that standpoint, they strongly refuse to allow people from outside to come.
Is this grounds for denying access on foot? Is this grounds for denying access on foot, or do they consider it legal because one person can enter?
Thank you for your time.
Comments
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. Having said that, if you're not certain you have the right to access a location or are not certain it is safe to access, please do not make any attempts to do so.
As a player or any other member of the community, you must respect access restrictions, never trespass, or in any manner gain or attempt to gain access to any property or location where you do not have the right or permission to be. Please review and follow the Guidelines at all times while playing to ensure a safe and enjoyable experience for everyone!
As the sign says in Japanese, this is company housing.
In Japan, if you enter this without permission, the police will be called and a police car will come.
It seems to me to be a reluctant stance to ask people to stay away.
The following URL is a translation of the text on the sign from Japanese to English.
Not every POI needs to be accessible to everyone. If it can be safely accessed by the people that work on the company, it's valid. It's very clear on November AMA.
Does this negate the AMA's statement that if there is no objection to entering a place, then it is valid?
What AMA says is:
These locations would still be eligible, including restricted areas on the grounds of a company’s headquarters or behind locked gates so long as there wouldn’t be objections to you entering the area and the location is accessible to some folks. We do not expect all players to have access to all locations but we strongly recommend following real-world rules while attempting to access locations.
"You" in the part that reads "so long as there wouldn’t be objections to you entering the area" is the person making the nomination, not everyone. The text is pretty clear that if "the location is accessible to some folks" it's ok.
So I don't see any issue at all with the second POI. I can't read the image, tough, if there's any form of harassment envolving the POI, a punishment for the players should be evaluated, not against the POI.
In the first there can be safety issues (I can't tell by the pictures if it's safe), but again, being restricted is not a problem.