Wayspot Appeal: Wayspot removed

Wayspot Appeals
, ,
1
  • Wayspot Title: Meadowlark Park
  • Location (lat/lon): 51.160892,-100.037085
  • City: Dauphin
  • Country: Canada
  • Screenshot of the Rejection Email * Invalidly removed by others *:
  • Additional Information (if any): Wayspot removed from Ingress.
  • Wayspot location was tied to the signage located at that location (current signage has moved to 51.160584, -100.037041, confirmable via Google Maps) and was the oldest Wayspot in the park area.
  • Park still exists as per City Recreation website: https://dauphinrec.com/facilities/meadowlark-park
2

There is already a wayspot to represent the park called Meadowlark Park Entrance and located at 51.160520,-100.039733 , so it sounds like maybe the wayspot you’re mentioning was retired as a duplicate of this.

1 Like
3

I believe the spot you list is at the opposite end of the park - sign at a different entrance.

4

The one I mention was the original one used for the park since around 2013 and the sign has been updated and moved to 51.160584, -100.037041 in 2022, and is a pedestrian entrance to the park

The one at 51.160520,-100.039733 was submitted far more recently, never active, and unlikely to be so due to it’s proximity to the Wayspot found at 51.160584, -100.037041.

5

I just made a visit to the location. I can confirm that the wayspot photo for 51.160520,-100.039733 is at least a year old based on the tree foliage so it’s not that something changed recently, beyond what appears to be an intention removal submission of a valid Wayspot.

6

So, was the way spot located at the sign’s original location (51.160892,-100.037085) or the new sign’s location (51.160520,-100.039733)? If the way spot for the old sign at the old location was removed, that makes sense. Now you can submit the new sign at its own location, though it might be considered a duplicate since it is a place name sign, not marking an entrance.

7

The correct action to handle the situation would be a photo update, and a special request move of >10 meters, not a delete of a wayspot.

For most games using Wayspots, a delete and resubmit probably would have little impact, but for my primary game of Ingress a deletion has a cascading effect that can be weaponized if the portal in question is one that has had it’s keys widely distributed. As the Wayspot has been used that way in the past within Ingress, the removal is suspect in its intent.

The local player community leans more to “we want as many Wayspots as possible” and is unlikely to have requested a removal. We’ve had issues with submitted/approved Wayspots on K-12 school grounds, but in my memory never a removal outside of those. We even managed to avoid the flurry of attempted micro moves to maximize Wayspot appearances in various games.

8

This is completely not true. Each game has its own ramifications and can be argued which is a more impact… however this isnt taken into account by wayfarer as if follows its own procedure. Repurposing isnt something thats not allowed. Im not judging whether this case is repurposing or not, Niantic can do that.

9

I believe the argument is that this way spot should not have been deleted, but moved 10m to the new sign.

10

Thats a fine argument all on its own without all the other mumbo jumbo.

11

Thanks for the appeal, @dranthi. We have taken another look but stand by our decision to retire the Wayspot.

1 Like