There is the Portal in off-limit locations that were previously accessible.In map , there is a way near by , but entrance gate is closed.Noone can go there.how do I claim an invalid portal? “Not Safe to Go on Foot” was rejected three times.
Not all portals have to be accessible to every single player at every moment of every day. As long as someone can access it, it’s fine.
Welcome to the forum @tjerryy
Restricted locations can still be acceptable Wayspots as long as there is safe access for people who are allowed to be there. Here is the reviewing tool tip on that issue:
Not every player has to be able to reach every game location.
1 Like
fwiw, I have contacted businesses through email to make sure they are aware that there is a game location there. If they don’t want it there, Niantic will remove it.
If the Wayspot has been blocked off and is no longer accessible by anyone, then it should be removable. If there are still people that can get through the gate, like inside a gated community or business, then Wayspot is still considered valid. Just curious - did you appeal any of these rejections? By making a post here in the Invalid Wayspot Appeals topic, you can post additional documentation such as geotagged photos or links to official closure notices. If this area is newly blocked off, then the satellite view won’t reflect the current conditions, and that satellite view is often the only thing that reviewers of the appeals have to verify safe access.
Thank you guys for all replies.That’s very interesting. I’ll definitely take a look at it and try to explain the situation.
[ For the following reasons, I would like to request that it be removed.
- Wayspot Title: オタナイ発祥の地記念碑(Otanai hasshounochi kinenhi)
- Location (lat/lon): 43.16391,141.227695
https://maps.app.goo.gl/q9o3MAKBXqGYqpmz9?g_st=ic
- City: Otaru
- Country: Japan
- Screenshot of the Rejection Email
- Additional information:
This was once a seaside village, and traces of old roads remain around the area, with a monument (Otanai hasshounochi kinenhi)standing where the village once stood. The area is separated from the surrounding area by a river and the sea, and is about 1.7 km from the nearest public road. In the past, there was a gate along the road, but it was not well maintained, and locals could walk 1.7 km from the side of the gate to the sea. However, the River Management Bureau tightened management, and some wind power plant was built nearby, so a sturdy gate was built at the entrance, restricting entry to anyone other than the administrator.
- For the above reasons,this portal is no longer accessible andI would like to request that it be removed.
Maybe we should specify “as long as some people” not “someone”. It’s really hard to argue that a place can be a great place to exercise to explore or to socialize if only one person or two people can access it ever, yet I’ve seen that argued before here.
オタナイ発祥之地記念碑
“Someone” does have it captured, so it is in use. @Leedle95 makes a great point, that it doesn’t feel right to have a Wayspot that only one person can access. But where to draw the line, if not at “as long as people who are allowed to be there can access it safely”? How on earth to verify the quantity of people who can access the game location?
We have no evidence about how many people could access this place. There may be one person who is the owner but we have no way of knowing what other people they may allow access to even on an irregular basis. If there is no home there then it is simply a restricted access place.
I do get the question as to person v people but that will be nigh on impossible to prove /disprove.
1 Like
Right, I wasn’t suggesting an actual number or anything like that, just that saying “ as long as someone can access the POI” seems inaccurate. Rather I recommend saying, “as long as some people can access it.” That’s really all. Mostly just because we would never encourage creating a POI for just one person.
It may exist that only a few people or only one may access today but restrictions may change just as this location tightened theirs. I don’t see how the number of people who can access this specific one is a factor, as it marks the birthplace of the village.
It is a commemorative piece. I don’t see how the number of people who can interact with these affect its merits. As are exercise equipment that may only allow one user at a time. I do get how socialization isn’t possible with a party of one.
I see cases where only one or two people can ever access something as very important. I may have a beautiful, priceless work of art in my office, but only I and maybe one other person is allowed to go into my office. Should that be a way spot for Niantic.? I don’t think so.
The example of only one person being able to use a piece of equipment at a time is not at all the same point. Because in theory if a piece of equipment is publicly accessible to some public group, not to everyone perhaps but some group of people, then multiple people can “access “ it even if they can’t use it at the same time.
A place cannot be a great place to explore or a great place to exercise for the purposes of Niantic, I believe, if only one person is ever able to access it. And I don’t mean it one time, I mean ever which is the case and some of the situations we see. I personally don’t believe that Niantic ever intended for people to submit points of interest that were only accessible to themselves and no one else.
Here’s what I mean
Continuing the discussion from Private Residences, Farmland & K-12:
So accessible by some community of people, not just one person.
2 Likes
Thanks for the appeal, @tjerryy. We took another look at the Wayspot in question and decided that it does not meet our criteria for removal at this time.