Appeal for rejected invalid Wayspot report - private residential property
playitloud-ING
Posts: 7 ✭✭
This waypoint is located on a rural and private residential property.
Now I love hike in portals! this one looked like a good one at first, just had trouble finding a way to get there.
Impala Road is a few private residential properties with several 'No Trespassing' signs along both sides of the road and then ON the road, at the Flowline, still long before the waypoint, there is an 'End of Public Road' sign along with the 'No Trespassing' (picture on map below)
ok no problem, I'll go to the Sooke Wilderness Park trails to the North and bushwhack my way there.
Found it! and felt like an intruder as I realized we are totally in someone's back yard. Hiked back out towards the park (with someone's dog barking it's way after us) and came across a trail with another 'No Trespassing' sign in the managed forest between the waypoint and the Park (picture on map below).
Felt bad. Went home and did some research, definitely private property, please remove.
Title of the Wayspot: Mountain valley summit bench
Location: 48°24'11.3"N 123°35'56.3"W
https://intel.ingress.com/intel?ll=48.412623,-123.592076&z=14&pll=48.403141,-123.598983
City: Victoria (District of Metchosin)
Country: Canada
Screenshot of the Rejection Email:
Map Image of where portal is and the No Trespassing signs at both North & South access points, as well as the Park Boundary Line:
Photo of actual portal location
Portal Key pic:
Additional explanation: This waypoint is located on a very rural and private family residential property. Not to mention that this 'point of interest' is just a couple pieces of rough wood slapped together to make a 'mountain valley summit bench' lol. While making inquiries about this area from locals, was told a story of someone being greeted with a gun coming out of the trails the wrong way from the park...they are obviously not welcoming to visitors. please remove.
see BC Land Assessment link: https://www.bcassessment.ca//Property/Info/QTAwMDBIUVFVVQ== which shows it is a single family dwelling (scroll to the bottom to see the property boundaries)
Here is the property photo with portal overlaid to show where exactly it is.
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.
Reopen this @NianticGiffard this is 100% single family private residential and being repeatedly abused by Ingress agents. Several of all us all have pending deletion requests.
What more criteria do we need to show a clearly private residential location?
Where is the home?
I would appreciate it if evidence like a 360° video is shared so we validate your statement and give it another look.
I see thanks, but question: Wouldn't that require trespassing though? Something best avoided for legal, ToS and other reasons?
Also for clarity, do you mean like a photosphere of the portal location and relevant signs or recording the entire trip there and back through people's private property?
I think the problem here is that while your link shows that it's a residential property, it doesn't conclusively prove that it's a single-family residential property.
I suggest that you try and find something that proves that - a floor plan with a single parking spot, a single postbox near the gate, something of that sorts.
It's irrelevant if there is a house or not, private property that clearly isn't open to the public is private property whether or not someone has a house there. Also it is easily visible to see the house on satellite, in the photo Playitloud supplied above it's covered by the lower left corner of the info box for the property.
EDIT: Not too mention that posting someone's floor plans, which typically isn't easily public info for private homes, seems like a major privacy concern.
Actually, the private residential property removal criterion requires there to be a house or other single-family residence. If there is no house or other single-family residence, then it does not fall under that criterion.
As per our investigation, the Wayspot is on a small hill that cannot be private property. If you're still strongly against our decision, please reach out to our dedicated team so it can be looked into, however, they would require property owner details.
There is a house there, OP's link proves that. It has 2 bathrooms and 5 bedrooms. It's also residential judging by its classification.
I'm inclided to believe OP, this does seem to be a single-family home. But I can also see how Niantic doesn't consider this conclusively proven.
Right to clarify between private commercial and residential properties, forgot about that thanks.
I'm sorry, but I do not see how that makes any sense? A hill can absolutely be private property here in British Columbia, lots of people own a hill or large part thereof. Whether it's private residential property or any other kind of private property you can own a hill.
The property I grew up on for example was a single piece of land that included a ridge with a small cliff face, about a quarter of the property was below that. It also included a marsh. All of it the same private single family residential property.
We'll see what else we can find to prove it even more but that is a confusing response.
The house is in the OP picture obstructed by the popup info by the pond. It's technically farmland but is essentially single family and regardless is under the same removal criteria.
As for photos, @NianticGiffard is basically asking us to trespass and potential have the owners point a gun at us to get the photos since he refuses to actually look at the land assessment.
Are you perhaps confusing the waypoint location with Camas Hill? This waypoint is much further North. Again I will direct you to the BC land assessment page https://www.bcassessment.ca/Property/Info/QTAwMDBIUVFVVQ==
which shows this is a residential property and does not include Camas Hill
Here it is on the intel map also
The waypoint in question is sited on private farm land situated within the Capital Regional District (Greater Victoria area, District of Metchosin Taxation District, Province of British Columbia, Canada). The BC Assessment website link already provided includes the ownership (private) for the subject property referenced by by the Parcel Identifier (PID) # 001-703-978 . The taxation category is "Farm land" per attached screen capture of the pop-up linked reference to the Assessment Act regulation (411/95) governing assessment of farm land in BC (https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/411_95 ).
A request was made to require property owner details per:
"As per our investigation, the Wayspot is on a small hill that cannot be private property. If you're still strongly against our decision, please reach out to our dedicated team so it can be looked into, however, they would require property owner details."
In BC, access to that information requires paid access to the BC Land Title & Survey system (https://ltsa.ca/), and the only information not found on the BC Assessment page is the actual legal names of the joint owners of the subject property which will not be posted here since such information is protected in Canada and B.C. under access to information and right to privacy legislation. A copy of the Land Title document has been acquired in support of this wayspot appeal but Niantic will have to provide a secure means of taking receipt of that privileged information.
I trust the additional graphics and highlighted points in the attached documents provides sufficient additional information to reverse the decision and thus have this wayspot removed from Niantic's database based on the grounds that it is situated on occupied private farm land.
Excellent info offtherock.