Portals in gated communities.
There’s a portal within a heavily guarded and patrolled community in Orange County, California. The guards refuse entry by driving or walking into the community.
33°46'57.1"N 117°47'12.5"W
Tagged:
0
There’s a portal within a heavily guarded and patrolled community in Orange County, California. The guards refuse entry by driving or walking into the community.
33°46'57.1"N 117°47'12.5"W
Comments
All portals not publicly accessible should not be in the portal network. Please remove them all Niantic.
Particularly private gated communities, military compounds, mining sites etc. No access, no portal. It really ruins the game for most people who play in those areas and encourages trespassing.
This has been covered a multitude of times. Niantic has stated many times that portals don't need to be accessible by everyone. "Recruit the guards"
I usually just follow another car in if I want to reach gated portals. Recently a drunk driver took out the gates at one of our local places which has been convenient.
Unfortunately Wayfarer system has its own rules.
if there is more then 1 house in that community then niantic says those are ok.. just like the situation not all portals can be reached.
Thanks for sharing, @malvert! Please use this link: https://niantic.helpshift.com/hc/en/3-ingress/faq/457-reporting-invalid-portals/?s=ingress-missions&f=ingress-missions&p=web and report this via the webform available. One of our agents will take a look into this.
According to the rules, this is legitimate. The argument should be made for changing the rules, not attempting to fix case by case issues.
The problem comes in defining a reasonable but distinct boundary on the definition.
You suggest reporting the portal. Does that mean you consider it as potentially invalid, based on @malvert 's description?
As far as I can see, it does not violate any wayfarer criteria.
No it simple means the forum is not the right location...
Does that mean you consider it as potentially invalid, based on @malvert 's description?
I think it means, report it and they'll look, make a decision, and continue on. I don't think they're making any judgement based on an existing description.
They suggested using the form so they can properly review it. (which will be denied removal)
those POI never accessible are just completely lame, but NIA is fine with them
in wayfarer, i reject them. people get into heated arguments with me over this, but i think they meet several rejection criteria::
"Location is unsafe, without pedestrian access". yep, if i try to get in there i'll get arrested and/or possibly be confronted by ar-med security guards. def unsafe, def no pedestrian access
"Location is a private residential property". yep, it's private, that's why the homeowners put up gates.
"Abusive location: Locations that are intentionally and strategically placed to provide advantage to a single player or collective group." yep, def gives an advantage to a single player or collective group.
again, people get into very heated arguments with me about this, but that's how i vote, and surprise, my rating is still "great"
This is not how it works, and you're more likely to damage your own rating than generate an upswing of supporters. You're basically intentionally reviewing against the rules.
If you want the situation to change, gotta change the rules.
GorillaSapiens is following the official portal criteria, but disregarding Niantíc's posts on the wayfarer forum that were made after the guidelines were released (the old AMAs became invalid at that point).
I think it's ok for reviewers to use just the official guidelines. It is not reasonable to expect reviewers to sift through thousands of forum messages to find out how Niantic interprets the criteria. Personally, I stopped following the wayfarer forum some months ago.
But anyway, this discussion belongs to the wayfarer forum.
Agree. If Niantic wants to make a change, they need to update the official guidelines. Not all reviewers frequent the forums.
i am following the rules. i even quoted them. and like i said, my rating is STILL "great".
No you listed rules, and your interpretation of them which doesn't mesh with everything Niantic has said about gated communities.
I could say "Portal doesn't have pedestrian access" for every portal in Europe, because I can't walk there from Australia. That doesn't make it a valid claim.
The argument can be done over at the Wayfarer forums
You've built a straw man out of my argument. That's disingenuous of you. You also only addressed 1 of the 3 rules i quoted.
I didn't address any of them. I said that your interpretation of the rules doesn't match the one that Niantic has given us repeatedly. then I highlighted how people can easily intentionally misread rules to suit their desire.
If you'd like me to directly address your claim, ping me on the Wayfarer forum with your appeal for removal of a Gated Community portal, as that's the place it's to be dealing with specifics.