When submitting a Wayspot Appeal, make sure to include as much of the following information as possible:
Wayspot Title: “Schaukel.”
Location (lat/lon): Ingress
City: Stolpen
Country: GERMANY
Screenshot of the Rejection Email (do not include your personal information):
Additional Information (if any): This wayspot is inside private property and it’s not in reach of Ingress scanner radius from outside the fence. It may be reachable in Pokemon but not in Ingress.
That does not look like single-family private residential property to me.
Hello @FlashSTL,
Private property itself doesn’t warrant removal or rejection of eligible items. What does need to be removed/rejected are things on Single Family Private Residential Property (SFPRP).
During Reviews you can select the ‘I’ for more information and you’ll be able to see this screen that talks about restricted access eligibility:
OK, I understand the point.
The residents of the property asked me if I could see a way to stop them being disturbed by PokemonGo players. Since the waypoint was created, every now and then someone comes onto the property with their cell phone and disturbs the peace.
This simply brings our community into disrepute and the people there are fed up, especially because pointless routes have already been laid out there.
You said above that it may be reachable in pokemon go, is that not the case? It looks like it should be
Also I don’t see any routes that require visiting that location.
Hi, I have a hard time understanding if the argument here relates to game interactability or to nuisance to residents, but I can suggest an avenue for the latter.
If you are in contact with the residents then they are likely in contact with the building management/owner representative. If the location where this is pinned is officially managed by them and they can prove their identity and role at a legal level, then they should use the form pinned at the top of the forum (“Wayspot Removals”) with their evidence.
This is the correct avenue for property owner requests, you should direct whoever is asking you for help there as this is unlikely to get addressed on this forum. Generally if nuisances created by Niantic game players are high and there are many complaints property owners or managers are willing to intervene. I’m sure you agree claims such as nuisances require some degree of proof, otherwise anyone could request the removal of whatever is not convenient for them in various games.
A lot of old people live there.
And they are now seeing more and more children and adults who, in their eyes, are taking photos of their houses. Every day.
A few months ago, a Pokemon route went there.
I have already had the route archived; it went past the houses in several loops (including those NE of the wayspot) just to make it 500m long. But I rarely play PokemonGo.
A few weeks ago, this wayspot reappeared on the map and the complaints from the elderly people came back.
Some players seem to be stupid enough to have to run to the wayspot. And they don’t stop at the gate either.
If the property owner wants it removed they can do so over this form: Reporting a Wayspot — Wayfarer Help Center
They will need to do this themselves, not over 3rd parties.
Thanks for the appeal, @FlashSTL. We took another look at the Wayspot in question and decided that it does not meet our criteria for removal at this time.
The complete lack of context on why a given decision was made causes frustration for the community and fails to educate people.
In this case, you could have added something like “because even though the rejection criteria don’t make it clear that only single-family private residential property is ineligible, our criteria clarification makes it clear that shared community spaces in multi-family residences and apartments can be eligible.”
Relying on the community to explain why you have made or will make a given decision allows false statements to proliferate as users guess at prior decisions and treat them as new criteria statements not made or clarified elsewhere.
