Wayspot removed and makes no sense

Wayspot Appeals
1

Hello. I want to submit an appeal on a wayspot removed. This wayspot was in place for 8 or 9 years and got removed today. Talked to the local community that plays pokemon go and no one agrees with the removal of the gym. I moved the gym a couple days ago to the real location because it was a little out of place and it was accepted here on wayferer and appeared correctly in game. Now suddenly, got removed.

2

Hi and welcome,

Sorry to disappoint, but this likely has no chance of being restored. It is located in a roundabout without pedestrian access, and these generally get removed as they don’t meet the pedestrian access rule. This unfortunately overrules any other considerations.

We’re happy to help with submitting other stuff in the area, if you’d like.

1 Like
3

This point of interest is in a roundabout and does not have safe pedestrian access from what I can see.

Unless you can prove this is intended for pedestrians to access, I do not believe this will be reinstated.

2 Likes
4

Sounds like your location edit pushed it into a cell that already had a Pokestop or Gym.

5

Thank you for the concern regarding safety. I would like to clarify that this Wayspot is located in a dense urban area with slow traffic, surrounded by a wide, dedicated pedestrian sidewalk along its entire perimeter.

While the structure is central, the Point of Interest is large and acts as a local landmark. Players interact with it safely from the designated pedestrian pavement that circles the roundabout, which is effectively the viewing area for this monument. There is absolutely no need to cross traffic lanes to engage with the location, as the safe pedestrian zone surrounds the POI completely.

Removing this long-standing Wayspot disrupts the local community, considering it can be accessed 100% safely from the public sidewalk without stepping onto the road.

1 Like
6

checked the map for that. it is just gone now. that would have been my first guess as well.

7

criteria is being able to safely access the point of interest. not being able to interact with the game location.

8

i was able to grab an old wayspot photo from ingress. it appears that the point of interest is this sign. is that incorrect?

image
image581×680 87.2 KB

9

Yes, that is the correct object. However, calling it just a ‘sign’ minimizes its importance. This is the monumental architectural totem for Braga Parque, a major local landmark in the city.

As the photo shows, this is a massive structure, not a small street sign. Due to its immense scale, the logical and safe point of interaction is the surrounding pedestrian sidewalk, not the base of the metal pillar. The structure acts as an anchor for the area, and the safe viewing/interaction zone is the public pavement that encircles it.

1 Like
10

The waypoint is the tower.

The tower is not safely accessible.

Remember the criteria is that the waypoint must be accessible not that it must be close enough to interact with it.

3 Likes
11

That’s an amazing tower and it is still showing in Ingress at the wrong location, which is where it was submitted - since it wouldn’t have been accepted at it’s actual location.

It doesn’t matter how wonderful something is if it doesn’t have safe access. Being able to get near to it is not sufficient.

1 Like
12

@SlimboyFat71 @salixsorbus Thank you for the feedback. I understand the strict interpretation regarding ‘safe pedestrian access to the physical base’. You are technically correct that the base is on a traffic island.

However, my appeal rests on the scale and nature of the POI. This isn’t a small statue or a trail marker where ‘touching’ it is part of the experience. It is a massive architectural landmark. Much like a lighthouse or a fenced water tower, which are often accepted if there is a safe viewing area immediately adjacent. The intended interaction point for this structure is the surrounding sidewalk, not the dirt at the base.

I moved the location to be geographically accurate because I believe in map fidelity. It feels punitive to lose a high-quality local landmark for correcting its location, especially when the community has safely interacted with it from the sidewalk for a decade without incident

2 Likes
13

These would be ineligible as well.

14

a decade ago, i believe the criteria was simply to be accessible from a sidewalk. criteria has changed.

15

I sympathise with you, but this is not what is important for wayspots. They need to be accessible at 0.00 metres from the wayspot location.

16

Thank you all for the detailed clarifications, especially regarding the current strict interpretation of the 0.00m access rule vs. the legacy criteria.

While I understand the technical violation pointed out by the Ambassadors and experienced users, I still believe removing such a prominent city landmark—which has been safely interacted with from the sidewalk for a decade—is a loss for the local map.

I appreciate your time and input. I will let the Niantic Appeal team make the final decision based on the information provided.

3 Likes
17

Think about it as a gain for an entire decade that you should never have had.

18

Maybe it should change again, since I’m pretty sure your positioning in relation to the wayspot only mattered for Ingress and Ingress is no longer a factor. Haven’t played Pikmin so I can’t say anything for that, but from the little I’ve played of Monster Hunter, the interaction distance with wayspots was quite generous and you didn’t have to get close to the object at all. And for Pokemon Go, being anywhere within 80 meters of the Pokestop/Gym is fine. So maybe this criterium is a bit outdated at this point.

4 Likes
19

Maybe outdated but it is still the criteria at this time…

20

It’s a bad criteria. Long overdue for a change.

1 Like