Unfortunately it is not, by the wayfarer team.
1 Like
Itâs all good. Ive learned my lesson for sure!
Good to hear. Donât be discouraged by this, you are doing the right thing and want to add wayspots for everyoone, but if you want to keep your account as safe as possible, you might want to step back from wayfarer for now, especially with hearing your current situation.
Good luck with your situation! Hopefully you have a huge succesđ€
1 Like
Is it though? I canât find it, you canât find it.
If it was a thing, wouldnât Niantic just tell OP that? Instead of the âmalicious intentâ business.
The closest I see is:
And itâs about moving AWAY not WITHIN.
Since OP said the restaurant expanded next door, I think whatever the appeals team was using still sees the old building next door and thinks OP tried to move the pokestop the next shop over.
1 Like
In my understanding it is a combination of unnecessary movement (equivalent location), cell politics, and confusion about accuracy of an indoor location.
In short, your original location was still accurate. I donât know if your suggested move would have put the spot in a different cell? I think they scrutinized that more if they are reviewing a potential abuse report.
Iâm currently looking through the forum and other resources, but this thread has some additional context:
OP this is from the above link
Isnât this what you did? Moving it to be at a more logical point of discovery? No one is going to be discovering the kitchen. And it is the new expansion, an accurate depiction of the real world.
3 Likes
This is why i thought it was OK to do in the first place. I appreciate everyones comments and extra effort on this one. I offered to supply all this evidence in my first two appeal requests. Denied still. I sent in my most recent appeal on July 3rd, no response yet. It is what it is, it seems.
You just gotta be persistent, sometimes the Niantic staff might respond in these threads.
You gotta remember, the benefits to fighting this are huge, whereas the demerits are actually nothing, since they wonât punish you further and you are already going through the reprimand
1 Like
this post in the screenshot is 5 years old. I would not use such old information and rely on it
I too would prefer something more recent. Please direct us to where we can find the most up to date judgment regarding this situation.
It seems honest mistake and not attempt to move wayspot into empty cell
You can explain that in appeal. Otherwise the 1st strike will remain for a year
1 Like
To an extent, this section of the rejection criteria web page for example
There is no more direct statement than this. From this I would assume it is seen more as an more convenient location than a more accurate location, which would not be allowed.
As the restaurant is the Wayspot and not the seating area itself there would be nothing to increase the accuracy for
This goes back to my previous point, itâs a move within, not away. And is it really about convenience? Doesnât Niantic say that you should be reach the pokestop? Itâs in the kitchen, thatâs safety hazard. Children do play this game.
IF they respond to my third appeal attempt. They gave me the same response the last 2 times and wont reaveal any additional info to me about the subject.
Its my word against theirs and they happen to call the shots
Sure, this location edit is a violation, but thatâs an error due to ignorance of the criteria. I think, if thatâs why you turn down people who want to cooperate with you for free against the project, then you donât have to cooperate. Because the CAs want to hang out with everyone if there is an event, but they have to spend that time handing out stickers at their booths. So I think we should try to apply to CA aside from this thing.
In case you are wondering, editing from one correct location to another correct location can also be a violation. The reason is that allowing a wayspot to repeatedly jump the line of inclusive rules can cause the intended glitches on the game board.
1 Like
But thatâs exactly the point, if it is only moving within the building that is the wayspot, thatâs only for convenience, and thatâs just as much not allowed as moving it away from the part I shared. These two things are not different when it comes to being under rejection criteria and possible consequences.
I find that kitchen argument a bit far-fetched, a restaurants kitchen is not a location a restaurant would want you in, but then coming with child safety as a reason is an exaggeration
1 Like
The original location was made when i was standing in line to pick up my to go order from the restaurant. It wasnt a super accurate location as i tried uploading it more than once and thought it would be denied again.
I think on the third attempt, it was successful. Later, when i was dining inside the restaurant, i assumed i could adjust the location to where i was seated with the other patrons, no problem.
Again, had i known adjusting a location would give me a strike AT ALL, i wouldnt have used the feature. I should have done more homework.
Is it really that farfetch?
Children play Pokémon go
Niantic wants people to reach the pokestops
Children attempt to reach the kitchen where the pokestop is.
This seems pretty valid to me.
well in that way you could also argue since children should use a niantic kids account by their parenbts that their parents are responsible if they walk into the kicthen
I find it far fetched because a kitchen is not a life threatening location for a child. Itâs just a place where unrelated people are not expected