[Suspected Abuse] Multiple Stops have been removed from The Great Wall of Los Angeles.
Title of the Wayspot: GWLA: California Aquaduct.
Multiple, all themed around The Great Wall of Los Angeles' different sections of the mural. One of them a former gym (titled above.)
Location: 34.177373, -118.414012
City: Los Angeles, California.
Country: United States
Hello! Multiple stops have been removed from The Great Wall of Los Angeles, a mural along the LA River. On Axew Community Day, everything was fine. Noticed on June 26th, a large chunk of stops and a gym were removed, and there as an additional two gyms on one side of the park. I suspect someone abused Wayfinder reports to force additional gyms in one small section of the park.
This has made the entire park a worse place to meet on Community Day, and I request these reports be repealed so the former spread of stops can be restored to the park.
Here's the Wiki Article for the mural: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Wall_of_Los_Angeles
Before:
After:


Comments
Someone has appealed these before and the appeal was rejected. First, there is the question of safe pedestrian access since these are along the side of a riverbank and pedestrians cannot physically reach it. Second, almost every one of those pokestops and gyms was created through a series of abusive location edits to bypass Pokemon GO's proximity rules. Even if Niantic deems the Wayspots have safe pedestrian access and restores them, they will not reappear in Pokemon GO.
@NianticAaron or @NianticLC Is it possible to rerun the proximity checks on this area so as to clean up the previous abuse that resulted in this artificial chain of Pokestops and gyms?
We have done that already. The Wayspots here follow the density and inclusion rules now.
There is absolutely safe pedestrian access, they are all viewable from the path through the fence. People regularly walk this path to observe the mural. (Students and tourists alike, not just Niantic game players).
If it's a question of proximity rules, then nothing to be done. I am curious as to why the north and south ends are viable but the middle isn't. As these waypoints are also missing from Ingress. Thanks for the context!
Safe pedestrian access isn't being able to view the location from a distance, but being able to physically reach and touch the location without putting yourself in danger. That is why objects inside roundabouts are still invalid even when you can see them from a nearby sidewalk.
You can't touch art pieces in display cases, and yet some are viable waypoints.
This series of murals are large, and intended to be viewed from the path above.
Also some murals are on sides of buildings above people's ability to touch. I'd argue that these series of murals are viable due to the size and context of intended viewing.
Nobody painted on the side of the LA River expecting people to climb down there. The path is *part* of it.
The purpose of a waypoint is to encourage people to get out there and experience the art and wonders a location has to offer. To discount this collaborative and cultural work is against the spirit of waypoints, imo.
At this point I'm just appealing to have the removed waypoints reinstated as waypoints. Where they fall in PoGo, with zoning rules abided by, of course, is secondhand.
You can touch the display case, which is part of the display.
Also, verticality isn't taken into account for the purposes of pedestrian access. If a mural is high up on a wall, and you can safely walk up to the base of the wall and touch said wall, that counts as being OK. Another example may be the art on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. You can't physically touch the ceiling or stand on it (although I guess if you're Lionel Ritchie you could technically dance on it haha), but because you can be directly under it, that is therefore fine. You can occupy the same latitude and longitude as it.
Interesting. So you can be under artwork, but what about being over it? The description of these murals leads me to believe you are located over the murals looking down on them?
In theory, yes, but in practice it's not quite as straightforward. The issue I'm seeing looking at Street View is that if you were on the side of the wash where the great wall is located, you'd have to literally go over a chain link fence to both see the mural from that side and be able to touch the wall that it's on. Obviously that's a safety risk either way, as you'd either have the potential to fall into water, or the potential to fall onto the concrete if there is no water in the wash. Being on top of something clearly has more safety issues than being underneath something.
You can obviously view it from the opposite side of the wash, but then you can't be within touching distance of the wall, which is a problem if you have certain actions requiring you to literally go up to the object, like scanning.
I really don't know what to make of this in all honesty. I'm not sure why some of it should be able to stay whilst other bits aren't allowed to. I also think it's a shame that such a piece of art should be in such an awkward location from a wayspot safety perspective, but the art wasn't designed with Niantic's database and rules in mind haha.
Yes, this definitely feels like a Rules As Intended vs. Rules as Written situation.
I appreciate the details you added in your after photo. Blocking out the eyes to protect Grumpig and the nearby mons gave me a good chuckle 👏