It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.
Sign In with Ingress Sign In with Pokémon GO
@TrevorAlan-PGO has it ever occurred to you that every time this subject comes up, your argument goes from ‘you haven’t lived on a base so you don’t know the difference between operational areas and residential areas’ to ‘to approve these spots you need to know the difference between operational areas and residential areas.’ If none of us who haven’t lived on a base can make that distinction, then how can there be a cohesive policy, other than “nothing on a military base is acceptable”? Over and over you rail dogmatically against commenters and Niantic about how nobody else understands, yet fail to recognize the flaws in your own arguing, that said lack of understanding is what *must* drive the policy.
The US military, as you very well know, has said that operational areas of bases are off-limits for location-based services. Niantic staff and 99% of reviewers cannot distinguish between operational and non-operational areas. The only policy, then, that can respect the hard boundary of staying off operational areas is to prohibit game activity and POIs on any portion of a military base. It’s the only. option. Other arguments may have gray areas but this one does not: by your own statements, the people curating the map cannot know or understand the difference, therefore the policy cannot allow for such a difference.
I’m going to assume you’ve never lived or worked on a military base with those words lol. They are completely safe. And if you feel they are unsafe its probably because you are doing things that are unsafe to begin with 🤦🏻
Such as trespassing to play an AR video game?
Yeah, they are probably the safest places in the US... Last place you can still say, "okay little 6yr old Timmy, sure you can play with your friend Johnny across the street, I'll leave the door unlocked just come home before sunset." Just let your kids free roam the neighborhood basically.
I keep brining it up because people keep saying they are unsafe (which they aren't) and then that they want all existing wayspots removed which is unacceptable (there isn't a problem and they aren't the base commander).
And no, "operational areas" are not off limits to "location based services". You can look up ANY POI on a base in google/apple/bing maps and find anything. GPS directions to anywhere on any base. Go on Snapchat you'll see stories on the map. Instagram tagged photos. They aren't top secret mysterious government installations...
Places like Cheyenne Mountain Complex or Site C-6 or IDK... Area 51? Sure! And guess what 0 people live there, those aren't "bases" they are "installations". And it's pretty obvious the difference.
If you think that a children's playground on a base showing up on Pokémon Go/Ingress game map is unsafe/breach of national security/a threat IDK what planet you are from...
and then that they want all existing wayspots removed which is unacceptable (there isn't a problem and they aren't the base commander).
People are advocating for change, yes having someone with proper rank is currently required. But that's not fair for the people getting disagreements for voting according to criteria. Invalid POI should be removed from the game and that's my opinion. We're allowed to advocate for it, just like you advocated that they should be eligible.
As Themanis has already pointed out, consistency between the guidelines and clarification is the best way to solve this problem.
@NianticGiffard If you could just tell me if you plan to modify the guidelines, that would be fine.
At the root of all these problems, not just this one, is the discrepancy between the rejection criteria and the removal criteria, and the failure to remove unacceptable Wayspots that have been approved in the past.
Unless this point is improved and clearly notified, this debate will be repeated forever.
Worryingly, a certain number of players are already acting as if an unapproved Wayspot is the same as an approved Wayspot if it is not removed.
I get lots of disagreements for following Niantic guidance on these. Here is just one example from yesterday "Holloman Dog Park Tire Sculpture" 32.834392,-106.086936
@NianticGiffard before you decide to close this thread, please tell Niantic's official stance about this.
Did you miss his response or are you looking for something else?
Well if someone is stupid enough to try to trespass onto an operational zone of a military base I believe they win a darwin award. I live in the residential side of a base in Canada and they are like every other subdivision in Canada.
I’m not arguing for or against the ruling of niantic or the military commanders who have made there rule. But there is a vast difference between going into the residential side of base to play on a playground or any type of sporting equipment. Vs trying to get into operation area’s of base.
Literally anyone can be on the residential side of base regardless of occupation. Its living quarters and has amenities such as a grocery store, gym, playgrounds, sport fields, different churchs, elementary/highschools and even statue displays of different military items wether it ranges from tanks to planes or anything else historical as they are meant as a tourist attraction.
operational side is where the work is literally done and is not for people to wander or for living quarters.
with that being said. @TrevorAlan-PGO I get you want something from niantic to change this. The problem is your talking to the wrong people. If you really want change for this you would have to contact your bases’s commanders to get them to change the military’s ruling on AR games on base property. That and that alone is the single reason why Niantic will never change there stance on this subject no matter how many times its brought up. The answer is no and its the final answer you will ever get
My father was the commander, of 22 different locations across the globe, there's no rule against AR on (US) bases. there's no problem with it.
A children's playground, a church, a basketball court, are all common sense things that are acceptable and should remain so, and those wanting ALL existing waypoints to be removed is completely annoying and wrong. Spawns were blocked on bases after initial trespassing issues, but now folks on here want everything removed because it hurts their feelings when the don't get an "agreement" if something gets approved on a base?
The problem on here is the apparent lack of knowledge of what a base is. And yes, I'm advocating for change to make (residential) areas of bases eligible again. But if we just wanna keep with the ignorance of what a base in the US is fine, but as threads pop up about people complaining and wanting existing waypoints removed from bases because they don't like it I'm going to continue to argue against them.
It follows the same logic as those people who try to get wayspots removed because they can't reach it, or take over the gym, or connect the portal. And it annoys and bothers them so they try to report them for removal. If you can't access the Wayspot on base then just ignore it, because it has nothing to do with you.
So my main issue is that I'd like to know WHY military bases (US) are "banned". And the only concrete suggestion I have gleaned is because of the original trespassing issues/news headlines when PoGo launched.
Everyone on here just keeps regurgitating the same misinformation that military bases are "sensitive", AR & GPS are not allowed, or are "unsafe". All those statements are completely untrue. (And please tell me I'm wrong, that's why I bring up I'm a military brat, and lived on bases, because I don't understand at all what you all are talking about when you keep saying these, and IDK how people who have 0 military life experience could know more than someone with 20+ years of experience in it?)
And then the more common things I see are folks trying to get existing wayspots removed... which has 0% to do with you so just ignore that they are there. Existing wayspots aren't your concern and don't affect you so leave them be and yes, if a COMMANDER has a problem with them, let them handle it.
Im sorry but this is utter BS. In no way is this the same thing, it has nothing to do with me or anyone not reaching quite frankly I'm not near a base so frankly doesn't affect me much. Limited access waypoints are completely valid I will never complain about them. Waypoints within a base are NOT valid and should be removed. And yes when I spent countless hours and rightfully reject on base portals and then see them accepted i do get upset at a lost agreement, they add up, they affect more than my upgrades, they affect my percentages, they can affect your rating too. So no it's nothing to let slide.
It does not matter "why" - they are. Niantic say so. Their game, their rules. Arguing about tiny differences in interpretation between players is pointless and unlikely to result in any changes.
So we should also remove all housing complex name signs, and all pond fountains, and all pools that aren't public, also ALL cemetery wayspots of any kind. What else? Because theres TONS and TONS of waypoints in the database that are "no longer eligible". They also show up in our nomination reviews because people keep submitting them. Except you and others advocating for removal of perfectly acceptable waypoints to be removed from bases makes it so nobody who lives on base (kids family etc) can play at all. Unless you're a base commander and it's causing a problem with your base you have no right to insist they be removed.
Youbare mistaken, this has to do with everyone reviewing by the guidelines and earning disagreements. When an uneducated reviewer sees accepted waypoints in the nearby they think they are valid and accept the current review, incorrectly. Same when these are showcased on the wayfarer page.
Yes, i would say so. Niantic should remove any waypoint that is not truly valid. I do my share of reports of things that fall within removal criteria, and frankly believe Niantic needs to do more. From your list pond fountains or the only thing I can and do successfully report and get removed.
So the solution then is to remove ALL wayspots that are ineligible now. So, ALL cemeteries, ALL pond fountains, ALL pools, ALL housing signs... might as well nuke the whole database and start over, because IDK how anyone (Niantic) would fix the problem and you (and others) singling out the military bases/community is incredibly unfair and uh, uncool.
Unless you're a base commander and it's causing a problem with your base you have no right to insist they be removed.
I have just as much a right as you have right to demand Niantic makes them eligible.
FYI I'm not saying YOU, specifically, I mean "you" in the more broad term. But sure, thats why I'll continue to advocate for military wayspots. I find the current policy unfair and nonsensical.
honestly yes we should. I'd love to not have to review a bunch of boring neighborhood signs and a lot fewer of them would be submitted if none currently existed.
I'm currently earning several disagreements a day rejecting things within 2 bases near me that are getting approved. Why has niantic not updated criteria in *2 years* so that other reviewers know better?
this reminds me of the suburbs/rural complaint "I should have pokestops wherever I live." well no, you aren't entitled that.
"it has nothing to do with me or anyone not reaching quite frankly I'm not near a base so frankly doesn't affect me much"
I have family, friends, and past coworkers who live on base, and I visit, and it is TERRIBLE for PoGo, nothing spawns whatsoever. And of Course if there isnt any waysposts you cant play ingress, also it makes it so the only way to play pogo would be to pay for incense or lures.
It's extra crappy because some bases are bigger than entire towns, so you have these completely blacklisted areas. Can't play anything. and then if theres no way posts at all its even worse.
(I couldn't figure out how to do the inline quote)
Well I find that WAY more fair, we should NOT be singling out military bases only then. And focusing on a reform of the system for old ineligible wayspots. But Niantic's stance on that also is that anything is grandfathered and only owners of the property (and for bases, commanders) are allowed to request removal (unless its something completely egregious)
Not defending the whole "rural" "want mor poke stop" argument at all, but it seems different (to me?) because bases are dense like a town with playgrounds and churches and recreation... They're essentially gated towns.
I just get super annoyed and heated with this ONE argument against bases. I'm not trying to be an ****, just drives me nuts with the singling out of military bases for removals, and then I guess the general rejection reason 1* unsafe blocks emergency services makes 0% sense.
If we wanna have a blanket removal of in-eligble wayspots, sure! Obviously those affect me too I'd love to stop seeing pond aerator fountains and housing development signs in my review queue. (ever since moving to Florida I drown in those)
fwiw it's pretty easy to get aerator fountains removed. I've reported a half dozen in the past year and all were removed. but of course they don't have pedestrian access rather than simply being ineligible.
Yea, that sucks. But, no offense meant, there are other things to do than Niantic platform games.
I'm no army person, but I have spent time in a residential area of a military base. Personally I saw no issue, but I'm also not the one charged with curating guidelines and handling public image and risk management.
On my daily commute I walk in front of many residential houses and sometimes cut across a school parking lot or in front of the fire station. All of those are just fine for me to do, but also within rejection guidance for ineligible locations and subject to removal when requested, even if not by an owner or property manager.
It's also false to compare all ineligible objects to ineligible locations. Niantic has maintained a long stance that objects that do not meet criteria are not removed unless they meet criteria for ineligible locations.
If everything is clear then why did this discussion going further?
The answer is extremely clear. The reason why the discussion keeps going is because OP doesn’t like the answer.