I am appealing this wayspot removal rejection because I know that this wayspot is no longer safe and accessible for the public. My family and I camp at this campground quite often, and I have single-handedly witnessed the new improvements at the campground over time. There used to be an access road (pictured in my second screenshot) where you could ride bikes or walk to the old abandoned Vail Lake Marina they had from the previous owners. This is not the case anymore, however, and, as of just last weekend when I was there, they have placed a sign stating that the area is now not accessible and is private property in current possession of the Rancho California Water District.
I have attached a third screenshot with a news article from the Rancho California Water District explaining that the access roads to the old Vail Lake Marina are no longer usable for the public due to weather damage.
I understand that I have been explaining the Marina access a lot, and this is not the actual wayspot. The “Vail Lake For-‘truss’.” is located on one of these access roads and is inaccessible at the current time. I know that KEI (which is working with Rancho California Water) is trying to expand the campground to later include this area, but it simply is just not safely accessible for the time being.
Please advise me on why this rejection occurred, and how I can resolve this because right now this wayspot poses a risk for trespassers to explore an area that should not be explored.
Thank you for your time and help!
EDIT: I added a new, fully zoomed-out map of the area with labels to provide better context.
Is your argument that it is not safely accessible to anyone - even those with permission to be there? A Wayspot does not have to be accessible to the public.
Looking at this on the map, I don’t see how this could exist here anyway. The Wayspot photo shows it by the water, but satellite view does not. Unless that road is normally under water.
The current wayspot is on property in current possession of the water district, and I believe that these roads are not usable from what the information on the Water District’s website states and my own observations when I was there. In theory, I suppose construction staff or owners/directors may be able to access the wayspot, but from what I read and saw, it does not appear safe nor accessible for guests.
The website specifically states, “In addition, winter storms have damaged both access roads to the Vail Lake Marina, such that the access roads are not usable.”
Yeah, this was my other concern. I was just reporting it due to the lack of safe access to this wayspot (based off my observations and research).
k staff will get back to you on the appeal. you obviously can’t go get a photo of the area, so i hope this is enough for them to take action. if they need something else, they will ask.
@NianticAaron Hey, sorry to tag you but I was wondering if there was an update on this. I know it’s been busy since it is a holiday weekend so no worries if not, I just don’t want it to get buried.
Appeals can normally take around a week or longer to process. No need to tag staff, specially over a weekend, as they will get to it in their normal operations.
@Snorlax1564 I, too, have questions about whether that wayspot exists at that location due to the photo of it.
But…As cyndiepooh has said, the wayspot doesn’t need to be accessible to the public. Also the requirement is for safe pedestrian access.
The roads are closed, so people can’t drive there. Could someone who has permission hike to that spot? That could be why your removal request was rejected.
It’s possible that someone could access the spot with permission, and I understand why it might have been rejected if that were the case. However, based on the map I provided, information from the district, and my personal knowledge, it doesn’t seem to be open or safe for pedestrians. In theory, a pedestrian could access it if they walked, but I also believe that it’s on private property, currently owned by the district. This isn’t generic private property like a campground next to it that has guests; it’s a county or state company that currently works or has access to the property. If you don’t have clearance, you don’t have access. It’s unfortunate because it was a fun place to explore on foot before. I hope they reopen it someday. There was even a bald eagle over there!
I will also reiterate what I responded to @cyndiepooh because I thought it this was a good explanation:
I really would just like someone from the company to respond or at least suggest how I can resolve this problem. I do not want to escalate it too much; I simply just want to make sure that the wayspots at the place I and many others travel to for a vacation are accurate and safe to explore. If it cannot be resolved or I made an error, then no worries, I just wanted to bring attention to this.
Thanks for pointing this out to me. This is my first appeal in this community format, and I wasn’t quite sure how it worked. Usually, when I reach out to a company for support, I follow up a few days later if there aren’t any updates. I suppose it was just a habit of mine.
I know there are some potential location accuracy issues with this wayspot. So that that factors in. But as others have mentioned just because this is now a more corporate property does not exclude it from having eligible wayspots. Please see the information provided as part of the review flow that I’ll link below on restricted properties.
Thanks for that information! I am starting to regret highlighting the “location not safe” aspect as my main argument, and I believe that I have a good case for that but it is clearly hard to prove this without being able to go take photos and provide reasoning since I left already. I understand that even though it is on water district property it could be allowed since people in theory could somehow get there; I guess I have no way to argue against this, at least not more than I already have. It is unfortunate that the area is not reachable how it used to be, and I suppose it is what it is. Either way, I still am requesting that staff would look over this if they can and just let me know if anything can be done. If not, no worries.
My concern is that an inaccurate location can be easily fixed by staff (which is a good thing )
The access road closure sounds like a seasonal thing. Although it may not be prioritized since the management change? Still unclear. And it’s unclear if the new management has other ways to get to the area - which I would assume it does. So if accessible they can enjoy it.
The least impactful argument is that the campers are no longer able to get there as they do t have permission or a path as annoying as that is, it’s not a deal breaker here.
I’m sorry for being a bit of a contrarian on this one, but I think additional evidence may be needed for removal on this one. And I know you aren’t there currently, so not sure what you could do.
Adding: it is (much) harder to get a wayspot removed based on removal reasons than initial eligibility/rejection reasons initially.
Because there has been quite a bit of discussion, I am posting this summary to wrap things up for the Niantic Staff to review. We can keep going in circles about the rules, but I’d rather just provide the facts I have gathered and allow Niantic to review and get back to me.
The spot is physically gone: If you check the coordinates (33.482163, -116.962340) on the current satellite view (AllTrails, Apple Maps, Google, etc.) that truss structure in the Wayspot photo isn’t even there anymore. It’s just one of the dirt paths and the water. And if you are wondering about those pole-like structures next to the pinned location, those are where I saw the Bald Eagle resting that I mentioned before, they are not the Wayspot. I am under the impression that you cannot have a Wayspot for an object that doesn’t exist.
It’s a literal safety hazard: This isn’t only about a ‘closed gate’ or restricted access like many here are suggesting. The Rancho California Water District (RCWD) officially stated on the official Vail Lake section of their website that the roads are ‘not usable’ because of winter storm damage (This storm damage has been present for years now, this is NOT seasonal) They aren’t just closed; they are physically destroyed. Keeping this active is a huge liability even for those not driving and encourages people to go into a damaged area that could be dangerous (I provided a link to the article that supports this), likely for something that doesn’t even exist or is extremely well hidden!!
Land Transition: As someone who has camped this area for multiple years now and has done research, I have learned much from the old Vail Lake Resort days (not the KOA) to the current RCWD possession and KOA and KEI Involvement. I have seen the changes firsthand. This isn’t a “simple hike” or “lake boat launch” anymore; it’s a construction and infrastructure zone with failing roads.
I’m done going back and forth with the community here. I’m just asking Niantic to look at the safety warnings and the fact that the structure is missing and make a call based on the actual criteria themselves.
Thanks for the appeal, @Snorlax1564 Due to insufficient evidence, we’re unable to remove the Wayspot in question. If you have additional evidence to share, like articles or geotagged images, if possible. Please submit a new appeal with additional information, and we’ll take another look.
Thanks for the quick response. I have provided everything I could find to support that this Wayspot does not exist and is currently in a project zone in my new appeal. It is linked here.
)