Sensitive Area for Military Equipment (Shanghai, China)

Wayspot Title: 上海船舶电子设备研究所-艺术圆孔门
Location: 31.074215, 121.359114
City: Shanghai
Country: China
Screenshot of the Rejection Email:

Why it is not suitable as a Portal:

  1. Sensitive and Restricted Location: The Shanghai Ship Electronic Equipment Research Institute is a defense-related facility, likely involved in sensitive maritime technology research. Niantic prohibits Portals in such areas due to security concerns. The institute’s enclosed nature, with strict access controls (e.g., employee-only entry), further limits public accessibility, making the Portal ineligible.
    https://hanghai.nwpu.edu.cn/info/1616/10678.htm

![Screenshot 2025-04-16 at 16.23.49|230x500

Impact on Gameplay:

**** Mod edit to remove non relevant gameplay accusation

1 Like

I am sorry to hear this. Personally i also hate this kind of gameplay but Niantic ald stated gated community is eligible. Niantic wont remove the object because of this nor spoofer gameplay. U may want to remove all game accusition because its not wayfarer related.

You might want to emphasis on other stuff like sensitive location or the object itself.

What is it?


What is artistic round hole door?

1 Like

According to the map and online data, this whole area belongs to
上海船舶电子设备研究所(七二六研究所)
or
中国船舶第七二六研究所

which is

“Shanghai Institute of Ship Electronics Equipment (No.726 Research Institute of China Shipbuilding Industry Corporation)” as described in:

https://discovery-patsnap-com.libproxy.mit.edu/company/shanghai-institute-of-ship-electronics-equipment-no726-research-institute-of-china-shipbuilding-industry-corporation/

and

“726th Research Institute of CSIC Heavy Industries Group”

According to United States Government,

Federal Register :: Addition of Entities to the Entity List, Revision of Entry on the Entity List, and Removal of Entities From the Entity List

The ERC determined to add Institute, CSSC 726th Research Institute to the Entity List for acquiring and attempting to acquire U.S.-origin items in support of programs for the People’s Liberation Army. These activities are contrary to national security and foreign policy interests under Section 744.11(b) of the EAR.

2700-77-entity-list-additions-revised

On December 18, 2020, Department of Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross released a statement
regarding the Federal Register Notice which names 77 Additions to the Entity List. These
additions are:

China State Shipbuilding Corporation, Limited (CSSC) 726th Research Institute

Simultaneously, webpages in Mandarin and published by Chinese gov for recruitment also clearly stated that CSSC 726th Research Institute “is a key scientific research institution of Chinese national defense industry” with the first sentences. For example:

中国船舶招聘官网|中国船舶第七二六研究所2024届校园招聘公告 - 高顿央国企招聘

招生调剂 | 上海船舶电子设备研究所2025年硕士研究生调剂_技术_水声_工程

That said, I agree that sensitive structures belonging to an institude added to U.S. Entity List should not be launched as portals. Niantic and Niantic Spatial complies with U.S. federal regulations, right? This is irrelevant to Wayfarer guidelines.

@luvletter
Please ensure your appeals focus solely on the legitimacy of the wayspot in terms of criteria.
Any and all references to gameplay will be removed as they are not relevant to the appeal and create a poor atmosphere.

1 Like

You can report spoofer gameplay separately in ingress while doing appeal for removal here.

1 Like

Furthermore, Baidu Maps provides for this 上海船舶电子设备研究所 the map view

https://j.map.baidu.com/38/v5fk

and street view for the entrance of this institute

https://j.map.baidu.com/8e/FKuk

which has the same building as background as the portal mentioned here 31.074215, 121.359114, and proves that these portals are exactly within the area of CSSC 726th Research Institute that has been added to the Entity List by U.S. gov.

Partially correct. IMO before talking about Wayfarer criteria, federal regulations are the first thing to be considered.

As I quote in previous replies, this or these portals are belonging to an institute on “The Entity List”.

Under § 744.11(b) (Criteria for revising the Entity List) of the EAR, entities for which there is reasonable cause to believe, based on specific and articulable facts, that the entities have been involved, are involved, or pose a significant risk of being or becoming involved in activities that are contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States, and those acting on behalf of such entities, may be added to the Entity List.

I’m not agreeing with the fact it’s on the list, just saying that as it’s still on the list, it’s improper for the portals to be portals for the time being because

These activities are contrary to national security and foreign policy interests under Section 744.11(b) of the EAR

1 Like

Just to be clear, there are no criteria that imply that being on a US “Entity” list has an influence on Wayfarer eligibility, so I am not sure why you would want to draw that equivalence, especially on someone else’s appeal. Let’s please stay on topic.

2 Likes

It’s not someone else’s appeal, I invited other players to provide more information supporting my appeal to remove this improper portal.

1 Like

I have reported the location spoofing behavior of the relevant players, and these players have already been banned, as stated in the original text. I want to emphasize that these two banned players indirectly prove that this Portal is difficult to access normally. This also demonstrates that these players deliberately exploited the Portal’s restricted accessibility. Additionally, why has information about removing other Portals within the scope of this defense research facility been repeatedly deleted? This remains part of the Wayspot issue. If it continues to be removed, I will file complaints through other channels.

Mod edit: removed gameplay arguments.

1 Like

Normally all wayspot should be removed case by case. From removal request in game, then appeal here if its rejected.


Because even if said wayspot is located in sensitive area, some if it might be eligible.

Again gameplay is not related to wayfarer so better if you focus on why said wayspot is not eligible instead of pointing at other faction.

1 Like

In fact, I’ve been fully focusing on providing reasons I think this portal should be removed which is aligned with the appeal for this topic. I feel uncomfortable about your “someone else’s appeals” saying. This does not sound like a warm reply as suggested by Wayfarer forum guideline.

Beyond Wayfarer criteria there is, firstly, https://www.nianticlabs.com/terms

While you are using our Services, please be aware of your surroundings, and play and communicate safely. You agree that your use of the Services is at your own risk, and that you will not use the Services to violate any applicable law, regulation

Not many other portal appeals will be involved in rare case about regulation and potential unlawful act under jurisdiction of the states like this. What I would do is providing as much relevant information as possible for Niantic staff to make decision. Please leave it to Niantic staff to decide whether that should also be taken into consideration, or still consider Wayfarer criteria only.

Hello All,

As a reminder from the Clarification Collection, items on military bases or similar locations can be eligible.

This information will factor in with information shared from the appeal. I have not had the time to review this in detail, but am sharing for those following along and reading the thread.

Oops - a fellow wayfarer already shared this.

2 Likes

That’s correct. However at the same time Wayfarer users are required to follow, firstly,

Niantic Terms of Service and Player Guidelines

first, as mentioned in Wayfarer Abuse Enforcement Ladder Policy — Wayfarer Help Center

And 3.2 Safe and Appropriate Use in Niantic Terms of Service has asked user not to violate any applicable law, regulation.

Here is the question, as these portals belongs to an institute that is temporaily listed in The Entity List

Players’ interaction with and the launching of these portals may be activities contrary to national security and foreign policy interests under Section 744.11(b) of the EAR of the states.

Are they still good to be Wayspots for Niantic and Scopely? It’s probably not a simple “Wayfarer criteria allows it” thing.

1 Like

As you mentioned, residential areas within military zones can be nominated as Wayspots.

Clearly:

  1. From the satellite imagery, this campus does not have buildings that resemble residential housing.

  2. Based on the photo and satellite view, this portal appears to be located in the green space between sensitive research buildings.

  3. This institution is listed on the U.S. Entity List, which highlights its sensitivity and restricted access.

Additionally, looking at the institution’s recruitment materials, political ideology screening and political background checks are mentioned twice, which further indicates the sensitivity of the location. Can a place that requires political screening for access really be considered acceptable? Clearly, accessing this site carries significant legal risks and the consequences could be very serious.

Finally, while the relevant ambassador repeatedly emphasized that gameplay considerations are not part of the criteria, the assertive tone and hasty conclusion seem biased and unfair.

1 Like

As a reminder no one should ever trespass to play any game. Niantic has been very good at stating that in all their games.

They also understand that not every player will have access to all places with eligible items. So be it a commercial company headquarters with a museum, a gated community with pools and playgrounds, an amusement park, or eligible items on a larger military facility — there will be people that can access these things safely and appropriately.

1 Like

That’s correct. However “do not trespass” comes from

you will not use the Services to violate any applicable law, regulation

You will not trespass, or in any manner attempt to gain or gain access to any property or location

in Niantic Terms of Service – Niantic Labs rather than Wayfarer Criteria

Which means Niantic Terms of Service is indeed taken into consideration here, apart from Wayfarer Criteria.

Then it goes back to the question:

Portals belonging to institutes on The Entity List makes it illegal for players to interact with them. Otherwise players are violating U.S. regulations.

Shouldn’t these portal be removed for the time being? That’s a much more important thing to be discussed as a reminder.

Just because certain wayspot is not accesible to everyone , doesnt means it should be removed. Ur appeal should highlight why its sensitive area or why the object is ineligible. Restricted access doesnt means ineligible. Wayfarer wont remove wayspot simply because certain people cant access certain wayspot. I am sorry to said this. But your best bet is report abuse in game. Because the main problem is the spoofer. Even though you succesfully remove this, spoofer will find another gated community for linkstar anchor.

2 Likes

No, you are simply escaping from the fact.

This is not a simple “I can’t access this Wayspot and thus I want to remove it” case. Everyone can see it.

The author of this post and I have fully explained what the case is.

Niantic staff can see very clearly that this is a special case and very likely the only 1 special case that involves latest U.S. regulations and consider beyond traditional criteria and dive deep into the Niantic ToS to decide the legitimacy of the portals.