Additional Information (if any): The portal is situated inside, although right by the border, of a private property(former fishing company, now defunct). Several of the photos of the portal are taken from inside the property showing that the players that took them have no respect for boundaries. This splat shows the private property and prohibited passage signs on the property: 3D scan by @KappaTau on Scaniverse
The only way to legally get close to the portal is by walking along the beach on low tide only.
To help with the review on the part of niantic, I would like to inform that this place is currently like a Museum, which can be visited, and is visited by activities and actions of the Barreiro City Council.
I am attaching some links so that you can learn a little about this specific place.
This exhibition can also be visited from the beach, which is easily visible.
Personally, I consider it an accessible place, rich in history for the locality, as well as the attached links will give you a little more information about the history of the place in question, as the agent in question was able to verify, it may be a place with some restrictions like so many others but it is not inaccessible and can be accessible every day several times a day, rain or shine, if the tide is high, it’s just a matter of not being afraid to get feets wet, as I and others have done, however I recommend this type of access (hight tide) in the summer.
Obviously we will gladly accept your decision, but in our opinion it is a place rich in history.
Good reviews, and thank you very much for making all of our POIDs of excellence and quality.
Something within corporate grounds, is not - per Niantic’s definition, within private property. It only means that the wayspot is easily accessible by employees and potentially by members of the community.
Nominations and edit submissions may be entirely rejected if it meets at least one of the following rejection criteria:
(…)
Ineligible location, place, or object
Location is a private residential property (even if historical), farmland, a K12 and under school (preschool, primary/elementary, secondary/high school), child care/daycare center, rehabilitation center, safety shelter
Worth adding to the discussion that this is a highly disputed Ingress portal by both factions.
I would like to add that restricted locations are eligible, even if they are restricted to a subset of people. This is listed in the Appropriate tooltip while reviewing:
PRP is also single family private residential property, and from the looks of this, and additional info provided, this isn’t SFPRP. It doesn’t appear that a single family lives here; it doesn’t appear that anyone actually lives here. PRP clarification can be found here:
The article provided not only is more than 10 years old, as only mentions the location as being present in the Barreiro municipality in the XVI century. Does not mention if visitation is possible. I have sent an email to the municipality inquiring about the possibility of visitation to the site. But from what I read on the plaque represented in this portal: Ingress I don’t believe visitation is possible. Tomorrow I shall post here a better picture of the plaque and as soon as I have a response from the municipality I’ll share that as well.
The photo of the prohibited plaque, even a better one, isn’t going to prove this is prohibited to all people. As noted, Wayspots can be at locations that restrict a subset of people, so additional proof will be needed than just a photo.
We have apartment complexes that have signs prohibiting trespassers, but if there is a playground or picnic area there for the residents and their guests to use, those are allowed to be Wayspots. They may be restricted to those that live at the apartment and their guests, but that shouldn’t stop the residents from being able to enjoy Wayspots at POIs in their neighborhood.
Those prohibited signs also appear very old, and could actualy be from when this was a fishing company. The screws and bolts appear quite rusted, and there is weathering to the signs, too. It could be privately owned but still a museum or historical building, not a single family home.
Lastly, checking Google Maps shows photos taken quite recently, back in January 2025, with that user giving this place a 5 star rating as well. There are also photos from Sept 2024, so people are able to visit it and take photos there.
Good morning again.
It is irrelevant whether it is a.C or d.C, in this case the most important thing is the defined criteria:
Here are some things to keep in mind:
things in a Gated Community, Condominium, Apartment Building can be eligible if it is in a common area. For example playgrounds or gyms.
commercial property can have eligible items such as art pieces but may require people to pay for tickets or only be accessible by employees. Wayspots can still be eligible in these conditions.
Gated communities, or their shared spaces may be eligible assuming they otherwise meet criteria and are intended to be accessed by a community, even if not everyone.
To sum up and give examples from our playeble area, so that you can better understand what is at stake, this case is not very different from an Auto-Europa, or those airport gates where only staff and friends can go, don’t you agree? They also have a private property portfolio, signs, tikets and accessibility restrictions, but they are not inaccessible.
Poid exists, it is proven, you can admire it, you can access it, and it is accessible by a community, all within the defined criteria.
However, if you can prove otherwise…
ps. Estou só a tentar explicar, a mim também me fez muita confusão este tipo de coisas, mas é o que é, novos tempos, temos todos que nos acostumar, concordando ou nao.
Thanks for the appeal, @kappatau. We took another look at the Wayspot in question and decided that it does not meet our criteria for removal at this time.
