Are secure restricted goverment access POI acceptable or abuse?
CurieUSGlo21212-ING
Posts: 9 ✭✭
Are secure restricted goverment access POI acceptable or abuse?
If they meet the criteria for abuse, are old restricted access POIs grandfathered in or should they be reported as abuse?
For instance, a POI only accessible to government employees and only those with special specific credentials have essentially brought game play to a standstill to anyone else in the area.
See attached screenshots
Tagged:
Comments
It's abuse.
That's not abuse.
Your second screenshot is an example of Niantic's poor communication abilities. They have tried to clarify it in this forum, but of course that's forgotten as no one can find it unless you search for it or someone provides you the link, in the end that block is meant to express that altering the location due to S2 cells is abuse but it's hard to talk about S2 Cells when you can't name S2 cells. So they write sentences that don't make sense.
Agreed with @WheelTrekker-ING above.
Limited/restrictive access does not itself typically mean abuse. In the past, an Ingress AMA post stated "Not all Portals need to be accessible to all Agents at all times. Think of it as an opportunity to make new friend." Today, that isn't really publicly facing, but the following is part of review criteria.
https://niantic.helpshift.com/a/wayfarer/?s=other-faq&f=niantic-wayfarer-november-ama&p=all
Can you explain what “providing an advantage to a single player/collective group” means?
We definitely understand that there are some strategically placed Wayspots that are critical for competitive play in Niantic apps, including areas that have restricted or limited access. This doesn’t apply to those locations. This guideline is about curbing abuse by Explorers who are attempting to make their Niantic app of choice easier to play by submitting fake or misleading nominations. In general, follow the criteria and help your fellow player explore interesting real-world locations in your cities and you should be fine.
In the past being . . . In the past. Wayfarer recently had a major overhaul. You can't explore here unless you work here. Workers can't even bring guests
The hyperlink and quoted text is directly from current guidelines. Just because you can't reach it doesn't mean it's ineligible or abuse, nor has it ever meant that.
@WheelTrekker-ING and @Gendgi-PGO are correct. This has been discussed many times and recently as well. Wayspots that are only erven semi public are allowed. In your post you mention that workers can explore here. That means that, however small, a portion of the population has access to this wayspot. This makes it inherently eligible. Provided a wayspot is not on single family private property, that is it not blocking emergency services, its not a K-12 school, and that its not faked, it is considered eligible. Based on your posts, this one appears to be completely within the bounds of Niantic rules and guidelines.
I agree I see nothing wrong with this portal. The parking areas for the complex seem to confirm that many hundreds of people work/visit this location. Not sure how one portal you can't access has brought gameplay to a standstill. This isn't an area that's easy to put a BAF over.
Nope nothing wrong with it. If its inside a military restricted zone it would be different though.
Restricted access areas shouldn't automatically be approved, even if the poi is valid. Even though staff will have access, unless you are one of those staff, you don't know what further restrictions are in place. Some restricted sites ban the use of mobile devices while on premises. Others may be occupied by any of the **** services, after all, they aren't obligated to announce who they are!
Common sense would say reject, overall. After all, some players feel any ig facility is open to them, and encouraging them isn't sensible. But every Nom should be taken individually, and restricted access locations are no different.
No it's not abuse.
I can't tell where this is from the provided screenshots, but unless it is inside an actually restricted area (which in that case they likely don't have phones on their person in the first place and wouldn't have been able to submit this OR play in any game), it is acceptable. Per this post about military/government areas https://community.wayfarer.nianticlabs.com/discussion/comment/129738#Comment_129738
Just because you can't access it and that bothers you does not make it abuse or ineligible. It has been stated many many times that a gated area is still eligible. Because it is open to the public and those who CAN enter the area.
@TrevorAlan-PGO I think we are applying different definitions to a restricted area. A restricted area has NO public access, and is only open to personnel and approved visitors. A gated community is open to whoever wants to enter, as long as they have reason to, and there are many reasons. Since op didn't define what that area was, I went with the one above, and you have said exactly the same thing as I did. Some restricted areas have public open days, and would be acceptable, which, as I also pointed out, should be decided on an individual basis. Generally though, they are restricted for a very good reason, and to approve something then, is negligent.
So, I'm unsure as to why I'm replied to in your post.
How does “publicly accessible” apply to locations that have limited access, like members-only clubs, gated communities, time-restricted areas?
Just like with the definition of private residential property, this guideline hasn’t changed. 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.