It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.
Sign In with Ingress Sign In with Pokémon GO
Can any Ambassadors especially ones who play Ingress please step in to this thread as well? @PkmnTrainerJ-ING @Elijustrying-ING @Kawhinot-ING etc.
Can you please clarify and close.
If you keep tagging Kawnihot they might become an ambassador too 😆
Let me get this straight. There are residents who have a disease that is so bad that they've been outcast to an island. They can have visitors but only if those go through extensive red tape to get approval from a government health agency.
AND YOU WANT TO TAKE AWAY THE ONLY ABILITY THEY HAVE TO PLAY A LOCATION BASED GAME?
It's right there, my dude. People *are* allowed to stay overnight. People *do* live here as residents.
@SeaprincessHNB-PGO You are generally correct for the town of Kalaupapa, although it is no longer an active colony for Hansen's Disease. From the NPS website, "Once a prison, Kalaupapa is now a refuge for the few remaining residents who are cured but were forced to live their lives in isolation."
It's not clear to me if the people who live in town have access to the lighthouse. It's a couple of miles away from town as the crow flies and about twice that distance via dirt road. BTW, I am aware of three different routes of potential ingress/egress for the town from outside the county.
I've attached a map for guidance. The points of interest:
I hope this helps clarify things. I'm not surprised by people being confused about the difference since there have been a lot of cases of people providing information about the town and then making statements about the lighthouse based on information about the town.
@Bloondie-ING There is one thing that we agree on. I think having portals that are practically if not technically accessible violates the spirit of the game and creates significant impediments to competition-- the game is not intended to be static, and permanent durables with an unlimited supply of keys reduces the ability of players to compete.
I think it's been demonstrated in this discussion and elsewhere that the wayspot does not meet Niantic's removal criteria. Pasting the same screenshots over and over, especially the ones that don't pertain to the lighthouse, is not likely to be effective. My advice for you is to do what I've been doing, and that is showing Niantic how their current rules can create significant structural problems in the game and lobbying them to change their criteria. A well-researched and well-crafted argument about the systemic problems created by longstanding nearly-inaccessible wayspots has a much higher chance of success than a bunch of screenshots, a misunderstanding of Niantic's criteria, and calling people trolls for providing you with evidence.
Thanks for your last couple summaries.
I still fail to see anything from Niantic about interpretation of reject criteria defining what is intended by “ There's no longer safe pedestrian access to the Portal.”
I do see individual’s opinions that any single person gaining safe access is sufficient.
I do not understand it the same way.
@NitrousBlue-ING That has been the story since I started playing Ingress in 2013. I'm nearly 100% certain that Niantic said it several times back in the G+ days and I haven't heard them ever contradict that. What is your understanding?
I'd suggest that you submit this for the next Wayfarer AMA.
Niantic often tends to leave the criteria somewhat fuzzy to allow for human judgement. The vast majority of the time they're talking about something in a roundabout or on the side of a freeway or something like that because that's the use case where it comes up the most.
Hi there, @Bloondie-ING! It looks like we haven’t gotten to this request yet or it hasn’t been submitted via the Scanner; at this time, we only take appeals to overturn decisions we’ve already made.
Here is the rejection @NianticOtoStar
Please see above. I attached the rejection
I have been to the lighthouse, and had captured it for many months before it was spoofed. Access to the Kalaupapa Peninsula is restricted, but no more restricted than many portals behind locked gates or on military installations. Just because you have not done your proper due diligence, or are unwilling to follow the rules of the Department of Health and the National Parks Service does not make this inaccessible.
The Kalaupapa Lighthouse is a very unique place, as is the entire Kalaupapa peninsula. With respect, understanding, and patience, instead of the overwhelming desire to blow green stuff up, there is access. Following the COVID-19 Pandemic, it is more difficult to gain access. Respect for the residents of this unique location is needed. They have been mostly spared from this infection because of their remoteness and the Department of Health's efforts to prevent this disease from the native population.
This site IS one of the more unique places in Ingress. This lighthouse's rich history and location are more in the spirit of Ingress than the majority of nonsense portals still in the game. It is unique, culturally important, historic, and it IS accessible.
The park is closed and has been for 3 years now.
This is utterly ridiculous. The only reason something should be removed is if it is physically dangerous to stand at that spot. Not because one faction has control over it and you can’t reach it. That is such poor sportsmanship. Other games use these wayspots, you know.
The option of the owners not wanting the Wayspot existing is available.
A question can be posed to the owners to check if they are happy with a Wayspot existing in the Niantic database and can request a removal themselves if they do not want a Wayspot on their land.
Going out of your way to seek out the owners and ask if they want to have the wayspot removed is still malicious. If it had bothered them in some way, they would have already reached out and requested its removal. It’s not like this game just came out.
The owners of the land a Wayspot is located on wouldn't be aware of something being on their land.
It happened locally in 2019 where a player was speaking to the owners of a lighthouse, I'm not sure how the conversation came about, and they didn't want the Wayspot being on their land as it is a bird sanctuary.
Wayspot was resubmitted and accepted without reviewers being aware of the owners request, and removed again after clarification was sought if the owners opinion had changed.
IMO, asking the owner's opinion is ok, what the owners do with the information cannot be controlled by the person asking their opinion.
If they aren’t aware of the wayspot being on their land, then clearly it isn’t causing an issue.
Lack of knowledge of an issue doesn't mean the issue goes away. It would still be an issue, and the owners of property/land would have the final say on the existence of a Wayspot on their property.
We took another look at the Wayspot in question and decided that it does not meet our criteria for removal at this time.