That would be a huge policy change for Niantic. Currently they want us to identify and nominate eligible items. They understand that these can be in restricted areas like gated communities, military bases, amusement parks/zoos, businesses. They understand that enough people have access that these are feasible locations.
1 Like
Military bases, hospitals, and clubs have people and are accessible, but that doesn’t mean everyone plays Ingress, my friend.
I’m confused. You think that these places shouldn’t have Ingress Portals because not enough people play? So you want to remove them?
That makes no sense. People had to submit them there. People play there.
That would be a significant policy shift for Niantic. Currently, they want us to identify and nominate eligible items, even if they are in restricted areas like gated communities, military bases, amusement parks, and businesses. They understand that enough people have access to make these locations feasible.
However, the discussion should not deviate from the fact that military installations and their associated regulations are highly restricted, as per Peruvian laws. The Code of Military Criminal Justice (Law No. 27,431) and the General Law of National Defense (Law No. 29,479) govern civilian access to military facilities, imposing strict limitations.
Regarding "Canchas de Frontón CCDL," there is an issue of abuse with the number of portals being created for similar types of sports courts, as seen in previous posts. Accessibility is a nuanced topic, and it is worth noting that a $2,200 annual difference and $100 monthly fee for entry is not something a game should inherently support or endorse.
Military bases have been explicitly added an labeled as acceptable (So long as the waypoint would be in a non-operational area that would be accessible to residents and visitors (public) of the base).
I was the one that helped get that clarification made.
So unless it is in an operational area, its eligible and gets to stay.
@Truenin the arguments you are trying to make have been made again and again and are incorrect. It doesnt matter if someone has to “pay a high fee” or the location is “limited sometimes”.
Just gonna say it you are flat out incorrect.
11 Likes
No its not a significant policy change, this is how it has been for quite some years.
And guess what, if that base has a problem they will report to Niantic and have the waypoints removed.
Niantic has broad rules that apply worldwide, and cannot divvy up rules base on locality.
Locations all the way to the street on PRP are still PRP because of US (and other areas) rules and lawsuits and whatnot.
Military bases in many places (like the US) have civilians, families live on base, elderly retirees, etc etc. With all sorts of amenities
You dont have to like it, just ignore those waypoints.
3 Likes
As I mentioned in a previous post to your colleague, only Niantic can determine what is correct or incorrect while the guidelines remain in a gray area. As stated earlier, let’s not divert the discussion to the military base issue, as that appears to be a different topic.
Regarding this specific portal, there appears to be a clear misuse of the system with the creation of multiple portals for the same type of location. Regardless of the accessibility or privacy of the location, it is evident that the system is being exploited to generate redundant portals.
Thank you for your understanding and consideration.
3 Likes
There are no need for any further comments in this topic. Wayfarer staff will respond at the appropriate time.
Please stop posting.
6 Likes
Our team is investigating this issue and will provide updates as soon as they become available. Thank you for your patience and understanding.
3 Likes