Please restore removed Wayspot "Piratenkreisel"

Title of the Wayspot: Piratenkreisel

Location: [Lat/Long]48.773461, 8.168609

City: Sinzheim

Country: Germany

Screenshot of the Rejection Email: Does not apply

Photos to support your claim:

Additional information: Actually I have no idea why it was removed. It is existing, accessible, matches criteria.



  • MagicalThorn-INGMagicalThorn-ING Posts: 525 ✭✭✭

    The answer to this question is clear. If you look at this location on Google Maps and also look at your photographic evidence, the answer will come to you. There are no footpaths here.

    This is a roundabout. Does not match the criteria.

  • sogNinjaman-INGsogNinjaman-ING Posts: 3,313 ✭✭✭✭✭

    The POI is on a roundabout / traffic island. There is no safe pedestrian access to the POI, so it triggers one of the automatic rejection criteria. No pedestrian access is one of the few reasons Niantic will remove a Waypoint. They have said many times that being able to interact with a Waypoint from the nearby sidewalks is not a valid reason to either approve or retain a Waypoint like this.

  • TheFarix-PGOTheFarix-PGO Posts: 4,728 ✭✭✭✭✭

    The object is in the middle of a roundabout and has no pedestrian access. Pedestrian access to the object itself is a fundamental requirement for all Wayspots.

  • Pjatniza-INGPjatniza-ING Posts: 3 ✭✭

    It has pedestrian access, it is easily reachable from the sidewalk. This is a small village with small streets. No need to cross the street. It's safe.

  • TheFarix-PGOTheFarix-PGO Posts: 4,728 ✭✭✭✭✭

    A sidewalk across the street from the object is not how Niantic determines safe pedestrian access. A pedestrian must be able to walk directly to the object's physical location. And if the pedestrian must cross the road or street, there must do so at a marked pedestrian crossing that allows them to do so safely. That is in case players use specific tactics while playing that requires them to be directly at the object, such as in Ingress where players will ultrastriking mods off a Portal without alerting the Portal's defenders.

  • Thanks for the appeal, @Pjatniza-ING! We have taken another look but stand by our decision to retire this Portal.

  • sogNinjaman-INGsogNinjaman-ING Posts: 3,313 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @NianticVK - for appeals like this, which is a "classic" no pedestrian access Waypoint, it would be very helpful as a reference for Wayfinders who may not be familiar with "reasons for removal" if Niantic could explicitly state a reason, E.g ".... but stand by our decision to retire this Portal because it does not have safe pedestrian access".

  • Nadiwereb-PGONadiwereb-PGO Posts: 1,117 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I completely agree, and I'd go even further: it would be helpful is a reason was given every time such an appeal is rejected. In obvious cases like this, it'd be helpful for the reason you gave.

    In less obvious cases, it'd be helpful because they can be very confusing even for seasoned Forum members. It often comes down to "I guess the owner must have requested its removal", but more often than not it's nothing more than an educated guess.

Sign In or Register to comment.