This site is an active Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority (MBTA) garage. It is used by busses and firetrucks for repairs and battery charging. The public is not allowed to enter as evidenced by the numerous signs and locked gates:
On top of all that, within Pokemon Go this active wayspot appears to be in an S2 L17 cell that is already populated by another active wayspot “Trolley Square Park” (42.397552,-71.129218).
Welcome to the forum! I am not staff to decide this appeal, but checked out the Wayspot to see if I could help you make your case. Being accessible to the public is not required, but being safe to access by those allowed to be there is.
I agree with you that this location does not look like a safe place for employees who are allowed to be there to play, either, from the photos you have presented. And street view from the road shows there is no space in there for casual walking around, imo.
Public access is not required. Safe access for those allowed to be there, is, but those are two different things.
I’m a transit employee - though not in that geographical area - and we have two pokestops on property in my bus maintenance facility. Both are inside of administrative and training buildings, though, not somewhere where anyone would have to worry about vehicles or other safety issues.
In re: the picture being on the other wayspot. That can happen due to another nomination being marked as a duplicate, even when that is in error. I had that happen to a nomination of a hot tub, which got marked as a duplicate of a swimming pool in the next cell over.
Following up on this removal appeal. This Wayspot remains located on restricted MBTA operational property with no public access permitted, including active vehicle maintenance and emergency operations areas. Supporting photographs of locked gates and warning signage were included in the original submission.
I understand reviews may take time, but because this concerns a potentially unsafe location, I wanted to respectfully follow up and ensure the appeal is still under review. Thank you for your time.
For people who are allowed to be there, these are spaces where vehicles are maintained, so employees would be expected to walk around the vehicle and would not be in danger.
Admittedly it’s a grey area and it might struggle to get accepted, but removals have to have certainty
(The lack of public access is irrelevant, as you have already said.)
And AS I MENTIONED PREVIOUSLY: the issue is not just that the site lacks public access, it’s that access is restricted specifically for safety reasons. This is an active MBTA maintenance facility with locked gates and warning signs stating: “DANGER Hazardous voltage. KEEP OUT! Authorized personnel only. Will shock, burn, or cause death.”
Warnings like that sound pretty “required and relevant” to me.
We seem to be going round in circles.
I think at this point it is best just to wait for the wayfarer team to decide on your request.
Please be patient.
I respectfully asked for an update to my original post. If someone had simply said, “Official responses from the wayfarer team on safety concerns can take a couple of weeks,” I would’ve accepted that immediately.
Instead, I got a flood of repetitive, inane replies from people who had nothing meaningful to add in the first place and are now just repeating themselves louder. I don’t fully understand how this forum is structured, but it’s obvious there’s some attempt at a meritocracy that is instead incentivizing people to churn out empty responses just to look like “active users,” rather than contribute anything useful.
I was actually trying to respect what elijustrying said about letting the thread cool down and having only staff respond at this point. But come on! Since you seem to think saying “I don’t mean to be pedantic” gives you permission to immediately become extremely pedantic, I figured I’d try the same approach:
Ahem.
I don’t mean to be rude, but unless you actually have something meaningful to add, maybe it’s okay to let the staff handle this one. And again, I’d hate to come across as unkind, but if your contribution here is just a very technical distinction that doesn’t really address the actual issue, I’m not sure it’s especially helpful.
It’s honestly wild to me that this doesn’t meet your removal criteria. This is a clear public safety issue, and not just according to me.
On 4/4/2026, I contacted the MBTA simply to inform them this Wayspot existed. On 4/6/2026, they directed me to their real estate group. I followed up, and a representative there agreed it was a safety concern and submitted a removal request.
On 4/7/2026, Niantic declined that request due to additional verification requirements, so the issue was escalated internally. That led to Roger Mann, Senior Director of Real Estate for the MBTA, sending a formal message on 4/15/2026 stating that this location is a secure, non-public vehicle maintenance facility and should not be promoted as a destination in Pokémon GO. He did not receive a response…
So if the property owner is explicitly stating this is a restricted facility and wants it addressed, how does this not meet your criteria for removal?
I understand what you’re saying, but I do not accept this as a legitimate resolution.
A known safety concern has been raised repeatedly about this location in the area where I live with my family, and it remains unaddressed. Closing the discussion does not resolve the underlying risk.
This forum is a public record, and I intend to keep documenting this issue here. At this point, that record reflects that safety concerns were clearly identified and left in place.
If someone is harmed as a result of gameplay at this location, there should be no ambiguity about whether the risk was raised in advance or how it was handled.
This thread will not get removed so it will stay as matter of record. The ambo has suggested that nothing further can be achieved in this thread, so there is little point in repeating your earlier points.
