Ghetto Water Tower
KamadoSamOhken-PGO
Posts: 3 ✭✭
I used to live 2 block down this gym and it was imposible to leave pokemon on it or do raids walking there.. remote raid is the only option.. its located next to a forniture store and you have to go inside and walk to the back part of the store in order to reach this gym.. Through the other side is a mini dealer of used cars and from there the gym still unreachable.. I think his should not be a gym
Comments
Yes, this probably meets removal criteria due to a lack of pedestrian access. You can find out more about reporting an invalid wayspot here: https://niantic.helpshift.com/a/wayfarer/?s=requesting-wayspot-modification-or-removal&f=requesting-modification-or-removal&l=en&p=web
Also, for future reference, words like "dilapidated," "derelict," or "unmaintained" are much kinder and more accurate words than "ghetto" for this kind of thing.
The argument will be that it can be reached by someone, that will be niantics take I assume
Also, im.not sure but looking at the map.it seems.it can be reached (maybe not touched, but at least reached) from that grassy area beside it
Looks fenced off with plants growing up the side. Doesn't look accessible as a result.
Looks like you can walk to it through the grass of the other parking lots to me.
Does overgrowth make it lava? Just wondering because an unkempt grassy area doesn't mean "unsafe pedestrian access."
I think they are saying that fences without gateways are surrounding all sides where there is no structure or wall. I also believe the term ‘ghetto’ here was used to indicate a walled-off area or enclave. The satellite view may make it appear to be accessible, but perhaps all of the venues that look like they offer ingress are impassable due to fencing and signs.
OP, the one who would know the area best, said that it cannot be reached except from the inside of a store, at which point you wouldn't even be able to see the POI. Even from the limited satellite view, it's evident that it doesn't have access.
If you can access it through a store that means people still have access to it. Regardless if you are allowed to go through the store to get to it or not
If it isn't suficient to have access via a nearby sidewalk, how does having access via a store unrelated to the POI meet criteria? I mean, you can't even see it in the store. How do you have access when you cannot see it? Can you explain using the quote provided by @Melurra-PGO ?
I think that the OP said that through the store you can get close enough to interact with it, not that you can really touch it.
Yeah I’m trying to understand the logic of “i cant get to it so it must be removed”. Clearly someone could get to it somehow or else it would never be a poi in the first place. Yes theres a fence around the water tower but that doesnt make it ineligible imo. Looks like theres a sidewalk going across the grass in upper side of the picture.
Clearly someone could get to it somehow or else it would never be a poi in the first place.
Are you joking me?
Do you pretend that there has never been any wayspot approved that doesn't fit the accessibility criteria?
Look at the satellite view some more. Looks like you can literally walk in the grass and go upto the “fence” thats surrounding it.
The fence is not the POI. It isn't good enough to get "near" it. You have to be able to access it.
If the fence was the POI, then your argument would be valid. The POI is the water tower. How do you get access to the water tower with a fence and store in the way?
You dont need to always have to literally touch the poi to be valid though. Thats why I’m so confused with this post 🤦🏻
In terms of the water tower, it may simply be the case that it got fenced off to discourage criminality in the area. Graffiti in particular springs to mind. Things are not always fenced off because they are unsafe. There are many different reasons why an object may have a fence around it.
I've seen Wayspots pertaining to public works of art that are fenced off and thus cannot be "touched". Are we now to claim that such art is to be rejected due to certain parties not wanting people to touch said art? Or is there a different standard depending on whether we like said object to be Wayspot or not?
Secondly, there are historical structures that are actually discourage touching them and people may even be penalised for doing so. Such structures may also be fenced off. Would be stop people from learning about history simply because there is a fence around the structure in an area that is otherwise open to be public.
The idea that a Wayspot must be able to be psychically touched is silly. Does not being able to touch a Wayspot made any difference to gameplay? Some murals are out of reach, so should we reject them too?
Now it's my turn to be confused by this thread. Scroll up - No one has claimed that a POI must be touchable by hand to be valid, so are you guys arguing against it just for the sake of it? A POI can still be *reachable* without being touched, yes. Nobody has claimed differently. "Reachable" means you can get well within 40 m of the object, observe it fully, read its sign (if it has one), "interact" with it, as Niantic says. Doesn't mean you have to literally put your hand on it.
If this derelict water tower is "reachable" only in the sense that you can technically get 38 m away from it by going into an unrelated store, then that's not actually "reachable" in the spirit of the games, now is it?
The guidelines (scroll up) clearly state that there must be "a pedestrian trail or walkway leading all the way to the object." It's clear there's not one. It doesn't say "there must be a pedestrian walkway all the way to the object, unless the fence/wall completely around it is just to prevent graffiti, then it's fine."
@SamCakeMaster-PGO, if you decide to submit a removal request, let us know the outcome. (I understand it will be hard to submit one, considering how difficult it is to get in range of the gym.) Don't forget that due to the nature of the process, may removal rejections have to be appealed on the forum to get resolved.
Reachable does not mean get within 40m. You need to be able to get up to the POI
Yes, I know. What people meant above is that if a work of art or something is in a protective case or cordon, giving the POI a buffer of a meter or two, it's still valid. But people in this thread are arguing that the water tower is valid even though you *can't* get less than 40 m close to it. Hence the contrast of "well within 40 m" for validity.
As I have stated multiple times in this thread, the pedestrian access must go all the way to the object. So yes, I know.
Safe pedestrian access does not mean everyone can reach it, it means someone can reach it at some point safely. Someone will be able to get to that water tower, moat likely the owner of the land, the council in the area, a maintenance man etc. I know of several portals that only 1 person can reach because they work in the place, its annoying but it's part of the game
It is massively unfair to Ingress players if only one person can access.
And it isn't clear that even the hypothetical situation where one person having access to it actually exists. Further, for an Ingress player using UltraStrikes, your pretend one person with access to válidate the lack of pedestrian access would also likely need access to the store and to third separate fenced off area. It is abundantly clear that you'd need three different sets of people to uktrastrike that location in your hypothetical.
The criteria don't appear to allow that, even if they allow your one.
Unfair doesnt make a difference. If there is access to one person and its not private residential property it is eligible
Massively unfair or not, its part of the game, again, I dont like that its part of the game, but I accept its part of the game
Its not hypothetical, someone somewhere will have access to it, there will be a maintenance man who needs to go to it on occasion, there will be people who can get to it
It's not my criteria, it's niantocs, go look ul the actual criteria nianitic have put out over the years and you will see I'm right
I'm having flashbacks to Trickster stuck in Belarus for the Avenir Shard event - "massively unfair " limited access, but all part of the game. I actually enjoyed the strategy involved in keeping that shard hostage. :)