lol someone sounds an ex bf
Wow, since 26days ago, this portal has been deleted twice! The same person keeps re-submitting and getting it approved…leaving out that the portals in this location is a school. Mind you, there are many school portals in Waukesha submitted by the same person.
The person’s name who submitted the portals are lited in the game right on top of the portal… If these portals were legit, they would have never been removed.
However, the abuse is still present
First of all, the only thing that’s “toxic” is metro Milwaukee Ingress xfac relations. And this silly discussion topic is just part of that.
This place isn’t a “K-12 school”. No classroom instruction takes place here. Never did. The sign in the back states “Preschool & Child Care”. Let’s consider the reason for the rule against wayspots at K-12 schools – Correct me if I’m mistaken, somebody, but the rule exists because playing Niantic or other games on a mobile device would be a distraction from classroom instruction. Am I right? The 4- and 5-year-olds in here won’t have any mobile devices with them. Only employees … but depriving one employee of a work portal is the whole reason you started the deletion-and-resubmission war, and the only reason you’re so invested in seeing these two portals deleted, isn’t it? Spite is one way to play a game, I guess. You do you.
The concern about gamers hanging around a childrens’ playground looking “suspicious” is unfounded. The two portals are located along Marshall Avenue. The playground is in the back. You can’t even see it from Marshall. You KNOW this. Talk about false pretenses…
Let’s also mention that you and your teammates had no issues with these portals’ existence for literally years. Remember the xfac pancake breakfast in the church basement before a mission day, back in 2018 or 2019? (I bought the butter and the pure maple syrup. You’re welcome.) No one complained then. You only started the portal deletions a year or two ago when you started your snit with the two nearby RES agents you were “close friends with”.
To sum up, It’s not the kind of K-12 school the rule was written for. The portals can be reached by any agent without coming anywhere close to a playground. And if anything in this discussion is “clear”, to use his favorite word, it’s that Jameys is trying to use wayfarer for his own personal beef.
1 Like
Correct me if I’m mistaken, somebody, but the rule exists because playing Niantic or other games on a mobile device would be a distraction from classroom instruction.
That is not correct. The restriction is based on locations that have “in loco parentis” duties. The people in charge at preschool, daycare, and actual schools become substitute parents when parents leave children in their care. Those places almost always have rules (sometimes even laws) around restricting visitors.
Playgounds don’t have the same concept because there is no one in charge of a playground who legally accepts responsibilty for a child. If a parent leaves their child there, that’s a personal choice (and one that could be against the law depending on how young the child is).
10 Likes
As for why
I have personally had issues with parents approaching me getting upset that I was use my phone near the children. The portal is actually at the corner…just 5 feet away from playground. So unfounded is your “opinion”
here is an interesting redit response " darlin133
Because I wouldn’t want a bunch of random people standing outside my kids elementary school looking sus. And ingress and pogo players look sus and shouldn’t be on school grounds playing games"
Here is another response"
Safety and Privacy Concerns: Allowing in-game locations at schools could lead to an increased number of players congregating at these sites, which can raise concerns about the safety and privacy of students.
This portal has been an issue for years, and just because it was there, doesn’t mean it was right.
As for you comment. "You only started the portal deletions a year or two ago when you started your… with the two nearby RES agents you were “close friends with”.
Sorry, I don’t know what you are referring to, but it sounds like you brought this conversation to a personal level. perhaps you should edit your response and be respectful of this community. Cursing is this forum (regardless how spelled) is not acceptable (Requested Moderator’s Attention)
PhaseolusV
I think that your argument comes from the viewpoint of the children… weather this will be a distraction for them. You need to think of this from the viewpoint of the parents and how they will have safety concerns for the ones they love.
Also, here is a snippet from the school’s own web site.
It litterally says 0-12
Preschool and daycare caregivers are trained to call the police if they see someone suspicious hanging around. Most kidnappings are non-custodial parents, and they don’t know you from Adam. Staring at your phone makes you even more suspicious.
1 Like
“snit” with an “N” is an actual English word, and not at all vulgar
Your usage and personalization of the topic suggests the terminolgy to be offensive… regaurdless of it being an english word. In general, Please keep it clean.
As a reminder to all
Please remain respectful to each other.
It is possible to disagree without referring to individuals or making accusations.
3 Likes
Hi
Found this:
or facilities
4 Likes
If one reads the criteria literally, anything within the boundaries of a property with K-12 is ineligible. 
3 Likes
Thank You. This is very clear, but doesn’t seem to help with the same person who keeps submitting the portal. It’s about the agent’s 7th time submitting and getting approved.
The voting community only see the church, so it keeps getting accepted. They are unaware of the school.
#1 this was the abuse as described
#2 How to keep from happening again?
3 Likes
Scroll to the top of this page.
Click “Reporting Abuse”.
This particular place is not clear cut.
It is all in one building.
There is a clear entrance to the church on one street and a totally separate entrance to the school on a different street.
It looks as though the part that is now the school would have been part of the church. But for many years it has had this separate arrangement and the school appears to be part of an independent small business chain. So the school is not a church- school.
I suspect that some time ago a financial decision was made by the church for the excess building space to be divided off and rented out to generate income. I’m not familiar with what to look for in the USA.
Having fenced off the external space to define the school I would think it reasonable to expect that there is a clear internal division. One building but 2 halves.
The only way to be sure I guess is to go inside and see?
You would hope that local knowledge would help but the posts here simply show a gaming war rather than a thoughtful considered wayfarer approach.
1 Like
It just turns in to a game of whack-a-mole. You could easily submit this in good faith and expect it to be accepted. And you would also be justified in tagging it as K-12 and expect it to be removed. 
When evaluating the suitability of these portals, it’s essential to consider the safety concerns associated with their location. These portals, repeatedly submitted and deleted, are situated on the grounds of a facility that serves children from infancy through age 12. While some argue that the building is primarily a church, the fact remains that it functions significantly as an educational facility for young children. According to the guidelines, K-12 schools and similar facilities focused on children under 18 are ineligible for portal inclusion. There is a clear expectation of safety and supervision.
I assume the repeated acceptance of these portals appears to stem from reviewers being unaware that the facility also functions as a school. There are two portals in question: one on a sign next to the school’s playground and the other on the church bells. Both portals encompass the perimeter of the school/church. This dual-purpose nature should not overshadow the fact that the location includes an educational facility where young children need safeguarding. In such environments, there is an added layer of responsibility and duty of care assumed by the caregivers, unlike in public parks or recreational areas where supervision may be minimal or non-existent.
For the safety of the children and to uphold the integrity of the game, it is imperative that these portals be permanently removed. The rules are in place for a reason, particularly when it involves the safety and well-being of minors. Allowing these portals to persist not only undermines these guidelines but also sets a dangerous precedent, potentially compromising the safety of children in our community.
1 Like
It is a rule that primarily restricts players from adding a Wayspot in the middle of a school yard. In this case it really doesn’t make much difference. You would reach it from a public street, there are plenty of Wayspots located right next to schools.
Wayspots need to be nominated at their location. Pinning them elsewhere will eaither be rejected, moved to their actual location, or considered abuse if bad enough.
Additionally Niantic specifies that you need to be able to walk right up to a wayspot. Some games have a wide play area but not all Niantic games do.
1 Like
Whether to accept or reject this Wayspot really hinges on a close reading of criteria clarification and the property lines. Nobody can reasonably expect the people nominating or reviewing to check them.
Talking about the safety of this location seems a bit absurd. If the object was just outside the property, on the other side of the street or if there was a property line running through the building would it be perfectly fine?
If the concern was about anybody going near a K-12 facility they would need to exclude a much larger area than the property itself.