a streetview of the protal : Google Maps
***Mod edit to remove game play references.
Hello,
I believe you are referring to the directional sign highlighted in red below:
There doesn’t appear to be any safe pedestrian access here, and I believe the 45 sign is the speed limit of 45 k/h. If you can provide any additional proof from where this Wayspot used to be that it is safe for pedestrians to access, it may be restored, but right now, it doesn’t look safe just from Street View.
Hi. The domaine de Carheil is a place where all the roads are mixed pedestrians bicycle horses and cars.
We all live in this place because it’s a secure place for us and our children’s. I gonna take some pictures when the sun will be up if you want.
Staff may need some photos in order to fully make a decision. Street View isn’t clear enough in this situation.
Thanks for your answer. I gonna take pictures and 360 view so they can see the pedestrian access.
In fact there is a lot of pedestrian paths all around and inside the domaine.
Just to note, the above reasons are not reasons to accept or reinstate a way spot.
Also, the map you provided shows “pedestrian paths” but they are not at the way spot. Being nearby is not sufficient. You have to be able to safely walk up to and stand at the way spot. If that means walking and standing in the street, the onus is to demonstrate how that is safe, and if cars routinely pass there, it can be a difficult argument to make.
I assume you we can walk securely to the wayspot and stand touching it, lots of people put some flowers at the bottom of the sign. a lot of agents went to this waypoint and never have any concern. i’m not the first one to appeal for a portal removal in our cell.
here’s a link to a google album with 360 vue I just took :
*** Mod edit to remove game play references.
I don’t think your photos help your argument and may even hurt you. You are standing across the street diagonally) from the way spot. Not safely at the way spot.
In france in rural area all the pedestrians paths are like this. We don’t have pavement along the streets.
In France, there are two types of developments to ensure that pedestrians do not walk on the roadway (the road itself).
See Article R412-34 I of the Highway Code: “When a roadway is bordered by spaces reserved for pedestrians or normally accessible to them, such as sidewalks or verges, pedestrians are required to use them, to the exclusion of the roadway.”
Thus, verges serve the same purpose as sidewalks as designated areas for pedestrians to prevent them from walking on the roadway.
Only when there are no sidewalks or verges are pedestrians obliged to use the roadway “taking the necessary precautions” (due to the dangers posed by motor vehicles), according to Article R412-35 of the Highway Code.
A verge is the space developed between the roadway and the ditch, allowing pedestrians to circulate off the roadway and without being in the ditch either.
Therefore, these are spaces reserved for pedestrians and prohibited for vehicles, as specified in Article R421-7 of the Highway Code: “Except in cases of absolute necessity, drivers must not stop or park their vehicles on roadways and verges (…) Any driver violating the provisions of this article shall be subject to the fine provided for contraventions of the second class.”
Wikipedia lists the different types of verges, among which are grassy verges.
A grassy verge is defined as “any verge that has not been paved, whether stabilized or not,” and it clarifies that “On low-traffic rural roads of older design, the verge is generally neither paved nor stabilized. Its structure consists of fill materials not sourced from quarries and covered with topsoil. This type of verge is grassy, even though it may not have been seeded at its creation; the grass grows naturally.”
So what you write is not only true in France, but pretty much any rural area in the world.
My points are: 1) you need to demonstrate that at the actual way spot there is a path or trail for pedestrians. Down or across the street does not help your case. 2) the second point you have “ when there are no sidewalks or verges are pedestrians obliged to use the roadway “taking the necessary precautions” (due to the dangers posed by motor vehicles),” is exactly why Niantic doesn’t often allow way spots where one would have to walk in the street to get to it or be at it. It’s one thing to safely and cautiously walk in the street, facing traffic and watching for vehicles. It’s another thing entirely to have people standing in the street looking at their phones playing a game.
My point is not to argue with you, it’s just to provide an opinion of what the problem with the wayspot is and how you might overcome it.
I think your best argument would be to stand at the actual wayspot and demonstrate the safe pedestrian path that leads up to it.
That’s what I tried to show with one of the 360 view I’ve made.
I was exactly at the portal.
Next time I go there I can try to make some other photos.
No the portal is at the sign. You’ve even noted it on your map with the arrow. At least the sign is where the geo coordinates are placed. You were standing down the road from the pinned spot.
Perhaps the pin is misplaced then.
But in this case there IS a verge so the pedestrians don’t have to walk on the roadway, precisely.
It even looks pretty wide.
look at the second 360 photo :
Isn’t this one ok for you ?
not arguing, just trying to improve my appeal with your advices.
That’s where the pin is. Now Niantic can use this information to consider your appeal. It’s much more helpful.
To note:
I have edited out game play references that were included as speculation for the removal.
This is not relevant. What is important is if this portal exists and how it meets criteria. Your photos are helping clarify tge situation for staff to consider.
Thanks for that.
That looks like a neighborhood sign, showing plats for the different properties. I don’t see how it would qualify, regardless of accessibility.
Do non-gamers meet up at that sign to socialize?
Is it famous or historical - so a visitor from out of town might ask to go see it?
If you’re going to appeal, you need to explain how it meets one (or more) of the 3 acceptance criteria: socialize, exercise, explore.
You can include links to prove that it meets a criteria. Maybe your town’s website?
We are talking about a royal estate offering remarkable sites in an environmental approach favoring gentle travel including walking.
you just need to look at the extent of the domain as well as the surrounding portals to understand its validity.
