I would like to kindly request a review of the recent removal of multiple PokéStops in our area. These locations were long-standing and had become important gathering points for the local Pokémon GO community.
Before the removal, players from several nearby neighborhoods would regularly come together at these spots to play, socialize, and enjoy outdoor activity as a group. The concentration of PokéStops encouraged cooperation and community events, fostering friendships and strengthening the bond between players.
Unfortunately, the recent removals have significantly weakened our local community. Fewer points of interest have made it harder for players to meet, organize events, or simply enjoy the game together. What was once a lively, positive social hub has now been diminished.
We respectfully ask that you consider reinstating the PokéStops that were removed. Their presence supported not only gameplay, but also real-world community building, healthy outdoor activity, and positive social interaction.
Thank you very much for your time and consideration.
This location looks like it may have been heavily abused to have more Pokéstops and Gyms than the density rules would normally allow for. If that is the case, it would be understandable why the area has been wiped and left to populate with the rules correctly enforced.
I’m not sure what the current situation is, but as @hankwolfman stated, there are clearly PokéStops and Gyms that deviate from the inclusive rules.
It’s possible that recalculation based on the inclusive rules is currently underway, or that process may already be complete. While it’s church property, it also appears to house a day service for the elderly. Perhaps complaints were received from church administrators who were utterly troubled by trainers constantly gathering there.
This is a map from IITC, which is no longer syncing since the Niantic/Scopely split on May 23, 2025. However it appears from this snip that there are several POI’s in the same cell that should not be visible in Pokémon Go due to it’s inclusion rules.
I don’t want to say it’s abuse, but it doesn’t look like a natural occurrence.
I’ll go ahead and say it. It’s abuse. This isn’t possible any more, but it used to be possible - people submitted a wayspot at location A in an empty cell (it didn’t need to exist as they used a voting ring to get it accepted), then, once it was in the game as a live location, moved it into their cluster (again, using a voting ring to accept the move). Niantic did not reapply the proximity rules when a wayspot was moved, so the wayspot remained a live pokestop/gym.
Now, when a wayspot is moved, Niantic reapply the proximity rules, so abusive players cannot create dense clusters like this.
Some clusters were/are so dense that it was/is hard to make out individual pokestops when there in person.
As easy as it is to say that and as likely as it is true, without knowing the full details and history of the location, you can’t know that with certainty.
Old nomination maps were faulty, satellite view can shift, and inclusion issues on the gaming map side have also lead to clusters that have not been directly related to abuse.
We’re constantly making improvements to Pokémon GO and occasionally, you may notice changes to the PokéStops or Gyms in your community. While we are not able to fulfill your request to add back these locations at this time, we recognize the disappointment this may have caused and hope you continue to seek out adventures at other PokéStops and Gyms in your surrounding communities.
I moved pokestops to their correct location that remained pokestops even though in an occupied L17 S2 cell, and was not committing abuse. The park rearranged some benches, so whoever submitted them had not committed abuse either. Just for the record that multiple live pokestops/gyms in the same cell was not always abuse.
True, but judging from the Intel picture above, the likelihood of this happening by accident/without intentional abuse is around 0.01%. Possible, but not really.
I agree it was not always abuse, but this level of clustering would be really hard to manage legitimately.. On the old forums, there were plenty of examples where the wayspots simply did not exist in real life anywhere near the new locations.
oh, i saw it happening the other way, where the submissions would go live in an empty cell where there was no way to confirm the location, then they were edited to the correct location, so the edit would go through. so glad Niantic started recalculating to prevent this abuse. the restricted edit distance was a pain, but with help chat, i don’t mind.
This is a video about Community Ambassadors for Pokémon Go. As part of the Ambassador program, I believe you’re able to apply for some extra Niantic Pokéstops and Gyms in your local community gathering spot that are not regular wayspots and do not necessarily have to conform to the regular density rules because they’re created specifically by Niantic.
The location you’ve shared in your original post was not created through the ambassador program.
My only ask is to be careful with wording and phrasing in these cases.
Remember, there are community members who don’t understand these situations and other members like in Cyndie’s example where the so-called “abuse” comes in when someone is trying to clean up misplaced or moved locations.
