Location: 46°18’36.2"N 119°21’46.5"W (approximate location as wayspot was removed)
City: West Richland, WA
Country: USA
This portal is a metal plaque embedded in a concrete sidewalk that is on City property (see screenshot below). The plaque, which is the Wayspot, explains the cultural significance and features of an adjacent Torri Gate. As shown in the map (see screenshot #2 below), which is taken from the County’s public GIS system, the Wayspot (location designated by blue arrow) is not on private property. Rather, the Wayspot is on city property associated with the street and adjacent parking berms. Both north and south of the Wayspot is public parking on the berm that is available 24/7/365. There have been no known complaints about the Wayspot from any of the adjacent property holders. There are zero access restrictions: A Pokemon family down the street accesses it. In Ingress, it is typically a ghost. When not a ghost, majority ownership time has been RES with the balance ENL. Clear evidence that there are no access issues.
The Torri Gate Plaque was a legitimate Wayspot that is fully consistent with Wayspot requirements. It should be restored.
Sorry, but I see a single family residence with a unique gate and a short walkway leading to their gate, which is obviously part of their personal property because no other house has a similar walkway. That they decided go put a plaque describing their gate is cool, but it’s still part of their home.
Who put the plaque and the flowers there? If it was the city and the city maintains t, maybe you have a chance, but if the home owner is responsible for maintaining those things, it’s part of their home.
Legally, your response is FALSE. It is also FALSE on other accounts. If the Waypoint were truely illegimate, I would support its removal, but it is a valid Waypoint.
The plaque, which is the Waypoint, is on public property. The fence’s location was permitted by the City, rests on the property line. (I checked. You can check with the City too.)
Your statement that "no other house has a similar walkway is FALSE. You mention flowers next to the walkway–there are no flowers shown in the photo I posted. So, you clearly have knowledge about the Waypoint area beyond the photos I posted. Surely you must know the house immediately across the street has the same type of walkway, but the walkway is covered by the pine tree in the photo I posted. See photo below, which shows just how obvious it is the walkway is not unique. The arrow in blue is the plaque. The arrow in red is the walkway on the property across the street. So, your statement “no other house has a similar walkway” is FALSE.
Finally, you imply that unless the city maintains the plaque it is an illegimate Waypoint. I am not sure what maintenance would be required, but irrespective of that, you are making a leap in logic that is not supported by the guidelines for Waypoints. Private parties support maintainance of thousands of Waypoints on public lands located across the country. For example, brass plaques on sidewalks throughout Richland, Washington; Dozens of “Pompy Stone Signs” throughout Columbia Park, Howard Amon Park, Leslie Groves Park (and many other parks); community vegetable gardens; and parks & walking paths adjacement to private businesses and home across this great nation are maintained by nearby private property owners doing maintenance on public lands. If what you say is true, by the same logic, all those other Waypoints should be removed–wiped clean–I don’t support that, but maybe you do? Do your teammates support their removal?
My overarching point is honest conversations about the legitimacy of Waypoints is fine, but please don’t make stuff up and misrepresent the facts using FALSEHODS to support a removal to satisfy a personal agenda.
The Waypoint is totally valid and should be restored.
The object is NOT on the fence. Please reread my post. The object (the Waypoint) is a metal descriptive plaque cemented into the sidewalk on City land.
You may want to take a picture of this in context.
The concern is that the plaque and gate are associated. So I’d really need to see this more clearly to be confident that it shouldn’t be considered SFPRP.
Thank for posting this. The Waypoint violates none of these parameters. This Waypoint is not attached in anyway to a fence or wall. It is a plaque embedded in a concrete walkway on public land
Respectfully, where is guidance that says a Waypoint on public lands is invalid, because it may be “associated” with something not on public land? If we are going that far thousands (if not tens of thousands) of additional Waypoints become called into question. The plaque, standalone, is connected to history, education, and culture.
Here is a debate with a different but similar topic. This is why I am concerned about the associated objects in addition to the implied association of the walkway with the property.
Thank you for sharing this. I think the Torri Gate Plaque is a somewhat different situation. If portals begin to be rejected or accepted not just by “being associated with” something on private property, but also have an “implied association” we have set the entire platform of Waypoints on a slippery slope.
Please note that while I am responding to your message, I am making a general, gamewide point (i.e., not personal). Thank you for the information you have posted.
In my opinion, there comes a point where the Waypoint guidelines have to be interpretted using common sense and bearing in mind the purpose of game, which is to get people out exploring and competing with a positive spirit. Irrespective of the team, when people make false assertions to nominate or remove portals to advance a personal or faction agenda AND prevail, this degrades NIA’s games and the reason for people to play.
In the case of Torri Gate Plaque, no one is harmed by its existance. It provides pokepeople play opportunities in the neighborhood–6 year old kid down the street was so excited when the Waypoint appeared. In Ingress, it is usually a ghost. When not a ghost, thus far, it has been mostly blue (I am green). Seems to me it is within the guidelines and has a net positive benefit.
Let’s be honest about what this is really about…a poke player of unknown origin created it. It ended of being one of the tens of thousands of couch portals (or nearly so) for other players. That ticked off somebody (don’t know who) and that somebody (again don’t know who) is willing to make a big issue out of it–that is, make a bunch of accusations, some of which are patently false hoping they can create enough commotation that something will stick. They do it either to gain what they see as an advantage or out of spite. There are instances where players on both teams do this. That is not NIA’s fault. But if that kind of behavior is rewarded then it speaks to the integrity of the player and game. Personally having seen this and false accusations all too often is why I don’t play locally regularly, and I know quite a few others who left NIA’s platform due to this kind of behavior.
So, whatever NIA wants to do with Torri Gate Plaque will be what it is. If it stays, I think that will be a vote for integrity. If it goes, some players will smugly chuckle that their kind of play is the way to get ahead in the game.
That is almost the opposite situation entirely… the plaque that would otherwise be eligible is on school property, and the wayspot itself is not eligible.
This case is a plaque wayspot on city property. The appealed rejection for this takedown claims it is “on the grounds of a private residence.” But it is clearly just outside of the property boundary, and directly adjacent to street parking.
The criteria clarification does not seem to apply here.
If a LFL is placed on eligible property in such a way that any visitors may obstruct the entrance, may encourage trespassing, or may present danger from nearby traffic, they should be considered ineligible.
Your example is not a LFL, but its what more closely applies.
Please keep the snide and condescending undertones out of this. You can acknowledge it’s a gray area and hold your moral high ground without the attacks on somebody presumably doing what they thought appropriate.
ownership boundaries cannot be determined solely by fences. In Japan, boundary studs in the ground are one of the official methods of determination. Or it can be checked on a survey map at the Legal Affairs Bureau. However, it is difficult for the general public to find such small studs or to see official documents if they are to be determined remotely via the Internet. Therefore, we, wayfinders, need to look not only at the subject site, but also at the surrounding land use. That method works well in this case.
This street view shows the use of other residential properties. If you look at the state of the parked cars on the other side, you should be able to determine that the unpaved lot with the plaque on it is part of a private residence.
The boat is placed in the The boat is placed in the parking space. Thus, extending the pavement divide of the street should determine the boundary of the residential lot.
