Duplicate Wayspot Appael
Title of the Wayspot: Prater Ivókút
Location: https://intel.ingress.com/intel?ll=47.486978,19.082734&z=17&pll=47.486978,19.082734 / 47.486978,19.082734
Screenshot of the Rejection Email: N/A
Photos to support your claim:
Photo number 1 (Google map):
Photo number 2 (Intel map):
Photo number 3 (the original POI):
Photo number 4 (the duplicate POI):
There are two “Práter ivókút“ named portal on the map which are close to each other. The original one location is https://intel.ingress.com/intel?ll=47.48649,19.081319&z=17&pll=47.48649,19.081319/ 47.48649,19.081319.
The original POI’s Hungarian and English language supported description is like this: “A Práter kút a park közepén helyezkedik el / The Práter fountain is located in the middle of the park” where the fountain means the well (photo number 3). So the description confirms that the “Práter ivókút“ is in the middle of the park . The duplicated wayspot is not even in the park where it should be (photo number 1 and 2).
Additionally, there are some grammar issues in the title of the duplicated POI meanwhile the original POI has the correct title. Instead of "Prater Ivókút" it should be spelled as "Práter ivókút".
On the other hand, the duplicated POI has a bunch of photos that came from the original. Many pictures have a bench on the background which can be find only in the park (photo number 4).
There could be a similar wayspot around the marker of the duplicate which I am not sure. However, the person who submitted the POI used this the original POI sources and moved the marker a bit further for some reason.
Overall, there are two same portals in this little area. One of them should be removed from the map. The "Prater Ivókút" is most likely the duplicated one as I claimed above. The conclusion is that the duplicated wayspot should be retired.
Hi, @antiphonix-ING .
It seems to me that the Hungarian word "Prater Ivókút" can be translated as "Prater Drinking fountain".
Isn't it just a public water fountain?
These can be found all over the city, can't they?
Because we can see the same type of watering hole by checking the Google Street Veiew shown below.
That's the place you pointed out as the place where the duplicates are.
This is not a replicated wayspot, is it?
They are not unique, they are public water fountains installed all over the road and are mass-produced with nothing to write home about, aren't they?
If this is the case, then both the original Wayspot and the replicated Wayspot, as you call them, are ineligible "mass-produced" and non-unique entities.
The fact that the photo used for the alleged duplicate Wayspot is slightly different from the ground that appears in Google Street View suggests that the original photo may have been assigned to the duplicate through a photo application.
(This is often the case when a Wayspot photo is assigned to another Wayspot in the vicinity.
I know from experience that this happened a lot, especially in the OPR era).
This object is also present in Google Street View.
It's not unique, it's just that there are several of the same shape.
So, if you are asking for this to be removed, you should not be asking for it to be removed because it is a copy, but because both the original and the copy, as you call them, are "mass-produced" and not unique in any conventional way, and both should be removed.
Shouldn't it have been?
Yes, these are public water fountain which are common in my area. Aside from this two Wayspot I found a third one which looks the same:
I guess you are right. These are “mass produced” POI which can be find easily in Budapest. I did not know that I could report as “mass produced” objects.
Yesterday, I was deleting some keys from my inventory in Ingress when I noticed two keys were like each other. I haven’t checked the google street view when I wrote this report because I was certain that these two were the same POI. Like the titles and the photos of the two are almost identical that and the description of the “original” leads me to report the other one.
I don't mind if both of two will be removed. I just want to follow the criteria and make sure that everything is correct. Overall these portals are still suspicious.
Don't be misguided by the previous comment. It's not possible to request removal because an object is "mass produced", that's an obsession of that person and has led him to a situation where Niantic staff has told him to stop posting without following the proper procedures and respect the rules of this community or face a ban from Wayfarer.
In your case, you should first request in-game the removal of the PoI that you think it's a duplicate, and if Niantic rejects that removal then create a thread posting a screenshot of that email and the data that you've provided as well as 360º photos of the zone to prove that there's no fountain around there.
The problem is that Streetview shows that there's a fountain that location https://email@example.com,19.0827457,3a,21.7y,-2.19h,86.33t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s6RxZ8OC7PO8L14t-317m8w!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3D6RxZ8OC7PO8L14t-317m8w%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D344.65332%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192
So the most plausible explanation for those wrong photos is that they had to nominate the fountain in the park several times because reviewers kept marking it as a duplicate of this wayspot, and the only action that Niantic should take on this wayspot is to remove those extra photos.
I reported the POI as duplicated object after I read you comment.
I think it is a possible that the player who submitted the Wayspot could use the picture of the "original" one because the player saw the other similar POI but couldn't get close to that and the submitter was close to the "original" POI. I can imagine that the submitter took pictures of the original one and submitted it to the location of the other POI. So that's why I think that the other POI is a duplicate but not 100% sure.
Don't forget the description of the original Wayspot. It almost says like there is only one Práter drinking fountain in this area which located in the middle of the park.
Why did you report it as a duplicate?
Streetview shows that there are two fountains, one in the park and another in that location, both are near Práter street, so both can have the same name (in fact it's better if they have different names, but there are reviewers that don't like to have wayspots named 1, 2, etc.. and if you find one such abusive reviewer they might try to report you).
Claiming that they are duplicates is wrong.
The description of one of them claims that it's in the middle of the park, the other doesn't so they aren't duplicates.
Why would a submitter send a photo of another fountain when they have a fountain already in the place where they want to nominate the wayspot?, no, that's due to bad reviewers marking the nomination in the park as a duplicate of the other one
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. However, we’ve made the necessary changes to the Portal.