These are official government-installed boundary markers, not farmland markers or private items.
They:
Are maintained by the city
Are located on publicly accessible paths
Have existed for more than 14 years (visible on historical Street View)
Are safe to access
These Wayspots were previously visible as PokéStops, and I have attached screenshots showing their appearance before removal.
Because they still exist on Wayfarer, I believe they were incorrectly filtered out by an automated system.
These Wayspots are important for local walking routes and daily exercise, so their removal has significantly reduced gameplay accessibility in the area.
Could you please review this and restore the Wayspots to Pokémon GO and Ingress if this was an error?
Ingress has split from Wayfarer as of May 23rd, 2025, due to the sale of Wayfarer and PoGo to Scopely. You will need to contact Ingress in regards to the portals. I don’t know if there is a working link currently for portal mods, but maybe a L16 or above Ingress user has it (I’m L8 and unable to review/use the OPR website).
Also, what Wayfarer map are you looking at? At this time, there isn’t a map to view all Wayspots available, except for some, so it would be helpful to know where you are getting this info from. If it’s Lightship, that also split from Wayfarer due to the sale.
More info on the sale and the last sync can be found at the following links:
Hi @GUTSTEACHER
Welcome to the forum
I’ve moved your thread to Wayspot Appeals because that is the area where Niantic/Scopely handles requests to restore removed wayspots.
Good luck
Ok, thanks for confirming. It could be possible that they have been removed from PoGo at the request of the property owner/manager, and, at times, when this happens, they may still appear on the nomination map screen to prevent them from being submitted again. However, we’ll just have to wait and see what staff has to say.
I personally think it’s unlikely that a property owner would request removal for a location that’s public property owned by the city. For now, I’ll just wait and see what the staff says.
It’s possible, even if city owned. Other cities have requested removal at publicly accessible places before, and they do have the option to do so here:
1.The Production Green Space System is a system established to preserve excellent green spaces and land for public facilities within developing cities. Under this system, the mayor of the city or town designates Production Green Space areas.
2.The current use of the land varies by plot, but from what I’ve seen, the area around this marker is preserved and used as green space. There are fields a little further away.
3.There are two types of ownership for these green spaces. The first type is owned by individuals. The second type occurs when an individual’s land has been designated for 30 years and they request the city mayor to purchase it, in which case it becomes city-owned. In any case, the marker will remain for at least 10 years and at most 40 years.
4.Here’s an official source from the Japanese government:
It’s a bit long and quite technical, but it covers “green space preservation and urban planning” in general. It’s a reliable reference, though. You can probably find easier-to-understand explanations elsewhere if needed.
You claimed the Wayspots are not farmland, yet in response to my question, you stated they are green spaces. However, the government/Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism’s linked page contains the term “urban farmland” multiple times. Furthermore, in your responses 2 and 3, you provided general answers rather than addressing the two specific Wayspots.
Aren’t those two Wayspots being used as privately owned farmland?
I’m using ChatGPT for translation, so I can’t interpret images.
To clarify, I’m not claiming that these are not farmland. What I meant is that the markers are not signs installed by private individuals. As you can see from the images, the name itself is “green space.”
Separately, in practice, the area immediately around the marker is not used as farmland, because the marker needs to be protected. That’s why I described it as “fields a little further away.”
Under this system, all Production Green Spaces are treated the same way. From what I’ve researched, similar markers have been used as Wayspots in other parts of Japan as well. The shape of the marker varies depending on the region.
Thanks for the information and the link! I’ll contact Ingress through this form for further clarification.
By the way, is the same process applicable for Pokémon GO as well, or is it handled differently?
As noted, the Ingress (now under Niantic Spatial) is separate from Pokémon GO, so nothing would change in Pokémon GO if you filled out that form. It would only go to the Ingress team.
You seems to be some misunderstanding about the Production Green Space System. I will provide a link to the Production Green Space Act and summarize it based on that. And to state the conclusion upfront: that location is absolutely not public land, but privately owned farmland.
Production Green Space Act: System Overview
This system defines specific private lands within urban areas that must be preserved as active green space.
Purpose of the Law and Tax Benefits
The primary goal of the Production Green Space Act is to mandate the continuation of agriculture, forestry, or fishery activities within urban environments. This is done to secure vital green space functions—such as improving the urban landscape and mitigating disaster risks—while balancing urban development. In exchange for this public obligation, landowners receive substantial tax benefits, including reductions in property taxes and deferred inheritance tax payments.
Types of Land
The designated land must be actively used for agriculture, forestry, or fishery production. This includes:Farmland, Forests/Woodlands, Ponds or marshes used for fishery.
Land Ownership Status
All land designated as Production Green Space remains the private property of the individual or corporation who owns and operates the farm, forest, or fishery.
The land is strictly private property and is not owned by the municipal or national government upon designation.
The Buyout Mechanism
The buyout mechanism is a long-term exit strategy, not a status of ownership.
Initial Period: Landowners are obligated to continue production for an initial period of 30 years.
Request after 30 Years: Only after this 30-year period expires does the landowner gain the right to request that the municipal government purchase the land.
Municipal Discretion: The municipality is not obligated to purchase the land. If the purchase request is not fulfilled, the land-use restrictions are lifted, allowing the private owner to develop the land.
If you were going to read that much, I probably could have just shared the URL instead of providing a simplified explanation. My long message was simply a heavily condensed and easier-to-understand summary.
When I referred to “public facilities owned by the city,” I wasn’t talking about the entire Production Green Space, but specifically the markers that were installed. That said, Production Green Space areas themselves are described as “lands with excellent green space functions and multi-purpose reserved functions as public facilities within urbanized areas,” so their public value is not denied.
As I mentioned earlier, the markers remain in place for a minimum of 10 years and a maximum of 40 years, serving as objects to observe and preserve those areas.
In any case, I only answered your questions to provide the information needed to reclaim this PokéStop, and there’s no need to have a debate about the Production Green Space itself. As I mentioned to others earlier, I am simply waiting for a response from the staff.
You repeatedly claim to have designated that stake (marker), but something doesn’t feel right. The coordinates you provided do not show the stake; instead, they show cultivated land. Furthermore, the correct location where that stake is installed is within the land parcel of that cultivated field. If those coordinates are correct, it appears the person who submitted this Wayspot designated the farmland itself, not the stake.
And this is a question: You stated that the stake was installed by the municipality (Chiba City), but where did you confirm this? Whether paid or unpaid, it’s possible the stake, provided by Chiba City, was installed by the farmland owner.
have been driven into areas designated within urban development zones.
These areas are designated to systematically preserve agricultural land for food production that combines excellent green space functions with multipurpose reserve land functions,
contributing to the formation of a favorable urban environment.
Stakes have been driven into the plum orchards used for producing umeboshi, confirming they are food-producing farmland.
Furthermore, slopes have not been created to prevent easy access from the road.
If we are talking about possibilities, there’s nothing more I can clarify, but the stakes are designated to be installed by the municipality.
The coordinates I provided are only the position where I remember the disappeared PokéStop being located, so they may be somewhat approximate. However, as shown in the images, it is certain that the stake itself is what was designated as the Wayspot. Certainly, if the PokéStop coordinates are off, an edit would be appropriate. That said, I believe any discrepancy is within a reasonable margin.
In any case, as I mentioned before, once the staff reviews it, they will be able to determine why the PokéStop disappeared, so I am simply waiting. This will conclude my response.
