Invalid Wayspot Appeal: Barking Creek Flood barrier (duplicate of already retired wayspot)
Spannerdaniel-ING
Posts: 47 ✭✭
When submitting an appeal, please use the below format:
Title of the Wayspot: Barking Creek Flood Barrier
Location: [Lat/Long]
https://intel.ingress.com/intel?ll=51.513692,0.094632&z=16&pll=51.515187,0.096531
City: Beckton/Barking border river, London
Country: United Kingdom
Screenshot of the Rejection Email:
Photos to support your claim: All the photos found in this already accepted appeal for the previous wayspot of the same object https://community.wayfarer.nianticlabs.com/discussion/39265/invalid-wayspot-appeal-barking-creek-flood-barrier
The new portal is in almost exactly the same location as the old retired one which met the removal criteria:
OLD:
NEW:
Post edited by NianticLC on
Tagged:
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
I believe the portal should remain in the game for the following reasons and will address my concerns for the previous and current invalid wayspot appeal.
The barrier has a very important role in keeping the River Roding from flooding during high tides and heavy rainfall. Whilst the barrier is rarely used, it is in place to protect against flooding in an industrial area. Furthermore, the barrier is a huge structure that can be seen from quite a distance away making it a landmark in the local area.
The wayspot has since returned to the game as a new portal following the acceptance from reviewers. I do not believe that the information within the previous invalid wayspot appeal provided a comprehensive and detailed account of access points to the portal. Furthermore, the previous appeal speculated that trespass was the only way to access the portal. The previous appeal stated that there were gated-off ladders that prevented access to the foreshore but no evidence was provided for this.
The other access point suggested was a fence that prevented access the bank of the river. Due to the length of the river, this is not the only access point to the bank so therefore invalidating the unfair inaccessibility claim.
Access to the Thames foreshore is legal at any time according to the Port of London Authority (PLA). See link below - Subsection ‘Can I visit the foreshore without a permit?’.
https://www.pla.co.uk/Environment/Thames-foreshore-permits
Access can be obtained by crossing the mouth of the river using a small boat/kayak as well. On the east side of the creek in Creekmouth Open Space, there is a set of steps allowing easy access to the foreshore. The above link shows access to the foreshore is legal and the following link supports that canoe/kayak/small boats can be launched from this location (see page 40 ‘Barking & Dagenham’).
https://canoelondon.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Access-to-the-River-Thames.pdf
This portal is a perfectly valid portal, and should not be accepted for deletion. It can be accessed from multiple routes, which are publically accessible. Additionally, the portal can be accessed by boat, and you can stand next the portal on public land, which qualifies it for use as a portal under NIA ruling. The route this player is showing in their invalid wayspot appeal is of the private path, which is being used to intentionally deceive those that review it into thinking this is the only route.
As well as being accessible from public paths and by boat, the portal can additionally be accessed through private paths when on a guided tour, which is another route that allows access to this portal. I have contacted the agency responsible for operation of the barrier, who have confirmed that tours can be arranged. Additionally, I have contacted the landowner of the nearby path (Thames Water), and they have confirmed that the path, sluice bridge and Thames foreshore are all right of public access.
As such, I am requesting that NIA allow the portal to remain. This is a strategically used portal, which Vanguards have put time and effort into protecting through the use of CAL due to repeated spoofs. There was no attempt made by this agent to have this portal deleted or marked as invalid until it was being used strategically by the opposing faction, at which point they flagged it to be moved and deleted on more than one occasion. I feel this is abuse of the NIA reports and appeals system that is being exploited to provide a unfair strategical advantage to RES agents based in the area after multiple hours of hard work from ENL agents.
References:
Boating through the Barking Barrier: http://pycnew.weebly.com/uploads/5/2/8/1/52811469/thames_guide.pdf -> Page 14.
History walk to the Barking Barrier: https://www.walkspast.com/p/walk-10b-from-barking-to-thames-along.html
Envrionment Agency confirmation:
Being local to the Barking creek flood barrier enforces my belief that it should be in the game. It was built after flooding of the Thames destroyed the town of Roding. Therefore the wayspot has a historical significance. Furthermore it can be accessed several ways, such as the Thames shoreline, which is publicly accessible by anyone.
"The route this player is showing in their invalid wayspot appeal is of the private path, which is being used to intentionally deceive those that review it into thinking this is the only route."
To be fair the player might genuinely not know how to reach the wayspot, and has assumed those that have reached it are cheating somehow. There's been a few times where I've assumed a wayspot is unreachable only to find out later, after asking others, that there is a way. Hopefully now the player has had the route to the wayspot explained they will stop asking for it to be deleted.
While I don't know enough about the area to say how accessible it is or not....I can tell you that all who have replied in this thread supporting it are friends who play together and are the ones that submitted it. The same people who would use and abuse this POI.
So they are not impartial posts 😉
Access to the foreshore may be legal but no without inherent risks.
"Can I visit the foreshore without a permit?
<Snip>
The Thames foreshore is a potentially hazardous environment which must be respected and contains some dangers that may not always be immediately apparent. The Thames can rise and fall by over seven metres twice a day as the tide comes in and out. The current is fast and the water is cold.
Anyone accessing the foreshore does so entirely at their own risk. Individuals must take personal responsibility for their own safety and that of anyone with them.
In addition to the tide and current, other less obvious hazards can be encountered, including raw sewage, broken glass, hypodermic needles and wash from vessels. Steps and stairs down to the foreshore can be slippery, dangerous and are not always maintained. Caution must be exercised when going onto or leaving the foreshore.
Before going onto the foreshore, always consider:
Wearing sensible footwear and gloves.
Carrying a mobile phone.
Visiting with others.
The state of the tide; is it rising or falling? Details of tide times is available from the PLA website and the PLA app.
You may need to get off the foreshore quickly – watch the tide and keep steps or stairs close by.
Finally, be aware of the possibility of Weil’s Disease, which is spread by rat urine in the water. Infection is usually through cuts in the skin or through eyes, mouth or nose. Medical advice should be sought immediately if ill effects are experienced after visiting the foreshore, particularly ‘flu like’ symptoms including a temperature and aching in the muscles and joints."
All of which points to that being a dangerous and unsafe area for people to be playing games in. Good enough reasons to probably get it removed again I would think...
That sounds easier than Beachy Head, which is a valid wayspot.
https://www.beachyheadlighthouse.co.uk/walking-to-the-beachy-head-lighthouse/
"When I do this walk, I am well prepared and my list of items includes:
I am well prepared because I am aware that anything could happen at any moment. I could trip, fall, sprain or break my ankle. I could get trapped by the tide or I could encounter other people in difficulty.
Keep as far away from the cliffs as possible as a [rock] fall could happen at any moment.
I was walking about 10 metres away from the cliffs a few years ago and I heard a heavy thud just to my side. I looked down to see a jagged sharp lump of chalk about 8 inches across. If I had been a metre closer it would have most likely killed me. "
> While I don't know enough about the area to say how accessible it is or not
Given your admission of having no knowledge of the portal or surrounding area. I don’t see what unbiased input you are trying to provide to this appeal thread.
> I can tell you that all who have replied in this thread supporting it are friends who play together and are the ones that submitted it. The same people who would use and abuse this POI. So they are not impartial posts 😉
So you're saying that the OP provided misleading information in this appeal just out of his own interest rather than to try improving the portal network?
> <Snip> ... All of which points to that being a dangerous and unsafe area for people to be playing games in. Good enough reasons to probably get it removed again I would think...
This is indeed a good copy/paste job from one of the links that was provided as evidence for the public accessibility of this portal.
Crossing the road is dangerous, should all the portals on the other side of the road be removed? In my opinion, no.
Capturing a portal in a football field is dangerous if you're hit by a ball, should they be removed? I'm my opinion, no.
Accessing this portal: https://intel.ingress.com/?ll=50.733774,0.241489&z=14&pll=50.733774,0.241489 is very dangerous, should it be removed? In my opinion, no.
"Dangerous" is often subjective to the player's comfort. You don't HAVE TO go to a portal if you don't feel comfortable in the environment (actually, you definitely should not go!) But this doesn't mean you should prevent others from doing so, be it via a public footpath, a boat, a guided tour or whatever else.
Firstly, this only addresses the access via the Thames Foreshore, which, albeit one of the routes, is not the only route. It is accessible in other methods that are entirely safe, such as the organised tours of the barrier (proof was provided above from the company responsible for the barrier). This is in no way dangerous, and it allows the portal to be publically accessible. Additionally, it can still be reached by boat (methods of which were supplied above) that wouldn't require walking along the Thames Foreshore.
If submissions where access is possible by boat are not allowed, should we petiton to have other portals removed, such as:
These can only be accessed across open ocean via boat, which would make them dangerous and ineligible by the above logic.
Additionally, picking up on the safety element, by the logic that there is some risk from going along the Thames Foreshore, should we also removal all portals in other places that could potentially be dangerous if not adequately prepared, such as the Arizona desert, Australian outback or Antarctic research stations? Access to these portals could pose a risk if factors such as weather (akin to the tide in this example), lack of sensible clothing or inadequate communication device, were not considered.
You could even argue that there's an inherent risk with every single portal, as it involves encouraging people going to places they've never been to before while looking at their phones. Lack of familiarity could lead to someone crossing a field with livestock unknowingly, being unfamiliar with a road layout, or wandering into private property.
The portal at the Barking Barrier is no different in safety risk compared to many other portals which have been approved and are still in use. In theory, the portal is potentially safer, as one of the access routes is through a publically-available guided tour, which would be led by someone familiar with the area, facility and hazards.
Due to the reasons above, along with the provided resources and references, I still believe the portal should remain, and the removal requests should be disregarded unless the circumstances change.
How does pointing out the bias of a group of friends backing each other up here equate to saying the original post is misleading? 🤔
It's the misleading info by your invested group of pals that I was pointing out due to the bias
The bottom line is this POI is dangerous for many reasons and due to this should be removed despite any of the other fluff.
As to if you think it's been reported because your group tries to be awkward with it and limit the gameplay of others, it's irrelevant. It's a dangerous portal,.end of.
Your response continues to gloss over that there is bias from all involved parties here. As you're friends with people in the area that is being fielded over, alongside occasionally playing in the fielded area, you are also biased. Please provide evidence as to which information is misleading, when we have provided information, sources and references for all points that have been made.
Your opinion is that this POI is dangerous, despite having not visited the POI yourself. You are basing your opinion on the report of another player, which does not contain all of the information. I have visited this POI myself, and can confirm it can be accessed safely, and have provided resources to verify this fact.
The comment about "limiting gameplay of others" is nonsensical. The point of the game is to create fields and capture MU. London is a very expansive, dense, diverse and active area, which makes any kind of fielding difficult. Due to the high population density, MU count is high and large fields are desirable. Out-of-the-way portals are logically strategic to maintain uptime of the field. If playing the game as it is intended is "limiting the gameplay of others", then why would this be the intention of the game?
It's a dangerous portal,.end of.
Based on your biased opinion of a POI you have never visited, despite multiple resource and evidence proving the contrary.
Now anyone can see who are the trolls here...
I used the same sources/links you and your friends used to prove this POI is unsafe. It has nothing to do with taking the OPs opinion although I had done my own research too.
The misleading part is the parts about it being dangerous were not copied/pasted from the links in yours or the others posts 😉 Being that being dangerous negates any positives a POI has, it's a bit disingenuous.
I rarely play your area but that makes no difference. You can insinuate I am biased based on talking to players in the area but my posts are based on facts. Of course I'm going to point out the connection between posters in this thread as you play together otherwise Niantic may be fooled that you are all impartial.
My job is done. Shown how all who have replied are all in the same social group and also shown it's a dangerous POI. My work here is done.
Thanks for the appeal, @Spannerdaniel-ING! We took another look at the Wayspot in question and decided that it does not meet our criteria for removal at this time.