Underwater Wayspots?

General Discussion
1

There is an amazing nature art work by the coastline near my city by a local and very talented artist. It is rocks with names that are placed by a coastline. Great for exploration, BUT… They don’t seem to be safe enough to be Wayspots because of the tide. Please see (and enjoy!) info on the art here:

Somebody nominated all or a lot of these rocks previously and they got accepted. I struggled for a long time to have them removed as Wayspots since they are regularly covered in sea.
I tried to reach one while playing Ingress, to hack the portal, but I simply couldn’t get to it. The tide was too high and there was a storm. It was not safe.

While these Wayspots may be safe during certain times of the day, they will be covered by the sea at other times of the day.
The way I understand Wayfarer criteria, this certainly makes them ineligble because of missing access and safety 100% of the time.

After the first exhausting round of trying to get them removed, I now see them popping up on the map again. So someone is nominating them all over again. I reviewed a few and rejected them for not being safe. My Wayfarer rating dropped as a result (which I don’t really care about, but the principle is important to me).

I have already tried twice to contact Wayfarer Help to have the new Wayspots removed. Currently in the middle of a third attempt. They will do just about anything to avoid taking action, and that always strikes me as strange and counterproductive.
First they’ll say, we investigated bla bla and do not meet criteria for removal, bla bla. Even with the website linked and a thorough explanation, as given here also.
Then they’ll try to send me to Pokémon GO Help page. Sorry, but no thanks.

I hate feeling like the forum is the only thing left to do, but here we go.

What are people’s thoughts about this? Am I missing something here? Are these not very clearly a no-go? Or?

Please, if you’re in doubt, look at the photos of the rocks. You will see they are wet from the ocean, some have seaweed growing on them. The website text describes with detail how the tide washes over the rocks.

And finally: Is there not some way that ensures that no new (identical with the removed) Wayspots can be added where they were previously removed? Can’t it be marked somehow or something?

Photos of the two new Wayspots under here, I´m 100% positive more will come.

Wayspots indtil nu
Wayspots indtil nu1078×1723 204 KB

Opfindelsernes Hav, 56.081654,10.25162:

Opfindelsernes Hav
Opfindelsernes Hav1080×2400 124 KB

Skumhavet, 56.081162,10.252468:

Skumhavet
Skumhavet1080×2400 126 KB

It’s important to add that I don’t want these removed to be a killjoy. I just genuinely don’t think they’re safe.

PS. I was unsure where to place this, so I chose General Discussion. Feel free to move this ofc.

1 Like
2

I read the link, and this is appears to be art that is meant to be approached and enjoyed. Wayspots do not have to have access 100% of the time - think Disneyland. We are meant not to put ourselves in legal or physical danger while playing the games. I would not want to see them removed and would plan a trip to visit them with a guide to the tides.

2 Likes
3

Disneyland is different, that is a ticketed location which is fine. This is literally unsafe.
And they are great, I just thought the idea was a Wayspot should be safely accessible 100% of the time?

4

I also wonder why Wayfarer Help agreed to remove them the first time around, for the reasons I gave and still give, and now they won’t. It’s inconsistent.

5

When they are accessible, they are safe. I do see your point.

6

Niantic is renown for inconsistent decisions. I believe fire station removals has been a recent one. I am also a fan of black and white consistent decisions.

1 Like
7

Is underwater safe for a Wayspot though?

8

It isn’t underwater all the time. You have my thoughts on this. Time for others to respond. I hate ignoring tags, but I don’t have more to say.

[Edit: If some are NEVER not underwater due to coastal changes, etc. then they should be removed. Idk how to prove that. Maybe geotagged and timestamped photos along with a tide chart?]

1 Like
9

Thanks for sharing your thoughts about this.

10

I would agree this should be classed as a request to remove on safely accessibility grounds. It would be no different to interesting ornaments that exist on the Thames foreshore (as an example) which are only safely accessible during low tide, which would require knowledge as to when the tide is low.

2 Likes
11

Hi @RESfarer
I’ll share my thoughts too :hugs:

When I think about security issues, I remember on a topic back to the old forum.
It dealed about wayspots in icy regions, glacier or something - that’s for me one end of a range.
A common theme here is the gated access and every time it ends on “don’t do what you’re not allowed to do, or bring you in danger!”
So back to the stones: they’re sometimes under water and sometimes not.
When they’re not under water, you can access them safely as pedestrian.
When they’re under water, no niantic AR game user should try to access them!
From this aspect I’d have no safety problem, in opposite - more landborder isn’t reachable, very cool.
But recently there was a decision against a lighttower on a rock, so Idk if niantic would share my pov :face_with_hand_over_mouth:

After reading your linked article I have more issues with the permanancy

1 Like
12

It’s gone, now, but there was a “clarification” offered by NianticCasey explicitly condemning “low tide” locations.

1 Like
13

I did a brief search only to be reminded that there was once a “Tide” (laundry cleaner) PoGO sponsorship. What a time…

I found a Reddit discussion about a seaside toilet (I’m not kidding) which somebody else references the comment I’m remembering and links it (although of course the link is broken since it’s for Vanilla). Not only was it before leaving Vanilla but it was before the 3.1 criteria refresh.

I did find a screenshot of Casey doubling down on it but am hesitant to share something of that nature at risk of digging up “clarifications” intentionally lost. But the direct quotes are
“… It’s not necessarily limited access but rather limited SAFE access.”

“… The difference between low/high tide and gated communities, these two situations aren’t the same. Someone living in a gated community would be able to access the Wayspot without any risk of physical danger.”

As for support, perhaps @NianticAaron or @NianticAtlas would be able to make note of this type of location and 1) take care of your referenced Wayspots, 2) make some sort of statement AND PUBLISH IT TO AVAILABLE SOURCES, and 3) make that information available to their internal team since they themselves are inconsistent at handling even published criteria.

3 Likes
14

Does not meet criteria for removal

This is Wayfarer Help stating that underwater is fine/safe.
I’m not ok with this. This shouldn’t be ok with experienced Wayfarer users either.
At this point I think there needs to be a clarification from the team. @admins please make this make sense. How is underwater safe, even if only part of the time? Are we not supposed to be able to reach Wayspots safely all the time? Again, this is not like a ticketed event that is always safely accessible, even if the access itself may be limited somehow.

15

I think we should always remind ourselves that a decision about one wayspot does not create case law or a clarification suitable for wider use.

I will think about this further and contribute when I have time.

1 Like
16

I actually meant to tag Niantic staff. Sorry.
I don’t see how there could be an underwater Wayspot that would be safe.

Jeg er nødt til at slå over i dansk for at udtrykke mig præcist.
Man kan godt finde undervandstunneler og den slags, der jo som sådan er i kategorien undervands, men disse er skærmede og derved sikre. Direkte kontakt med vandet som disse sten i havet er ikke sikkert.
Dette burde slet ikke være sådan en diskussion, jeg er lidt overrasket over det.

17

I would be pedantic and say as long as it’s available to snorklers, it’s safe… but I value my time on here, so I won’t go down that route.

1 Like
18

Would still be awesome with a team clarification. Is underwater safe or not? And if not safe, then what about these types of locations? Thanks in advance.

19

Quite an interesting read …

I am thinking that if I was playing in the area for the first time … and … I saw the spots … so walked to that location … and … the stones were covered by the sea … I would be disappointed at the waste of my time … and … wondering why that spot was approved in the first place.

I should not have to check tide times to access. I am visitor touring and may never be there again.

On the other hand if I see the spots up ahead at the theme park … I also see the theme park and know straight away that if I keep going that way … it has to be open and I would have to pay. I get to choose before proceeding.

1 Like
20

Thanks for your comment, and great points.
For me the line will always be drawn at the limited access vs limited SAFE access.
Niantic has specified that the theme park in your example is perfectly fine and eligible.
They have also specified that there needs to be safe pedestrian access to the Wayspot, but sure, they have not phrased it safe pedestrian access 100% of the time.
My ‘fault’ here is assuming that of course they mean that the Wayspot should always be safely accessible, no matter the time frame. I guess I just see it as painfully obvious that anything in these game should have 100% safe access.

I would still really like to hear a clarification from one of the Niantic team members, because I certainly think this is quite important.

1 Like