Invalid Portal Removal of a Park

Category: Invalid Portal Removal

Title of the portal: Meadow Park

Location: 38.545791, -89.093288

City: Centralia

Country: United States

Screenshot of the rejection email: NA

Photos to support claim:

1st picture should take you to a total of three pictures showing the sign for Meadow Park at different distances and a picture with a phone showing the gps location is located in Meadow Park during the picture.

2nd picture shows Meadow Park when searched on Google Maps.

3rd picture shows Bing search results for Meadow Park.

4th picture shows Google search results for Meadow Park

5th picture shows the results for when "Parks centralia Illinois" is searched and has Meadow Park highlighted.



  • TheFarixTheFarix ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited August 2019
  • @TheFarix how can an appeal be falsified if it actually exists? I'm also sorry that someone else thought that Meadow Park shouldn't have been removed. I believe the evidence is pretty clear.

  • kholman1kholman1 ✭✭✭✭

    Applewood. You placed a false park map pin on private property. I did google searches this is not a park. The Centralia Illinois city website does not list a Meadow Park on the recreation page. Also you drew false google maps boundaries to fake this park. How much more evidence do we need to flatly deny this and report it to niantic.

  • It appears that you don't know how to do a google search. At least I helped you by putting a screenshot above. Also the Centralia Illinios City website only lists like three parks for Centralia. Again a simple google search would show you that there are a lot more parks in Centralia than the ones listed but I also helped you with that with another screenshot showing the parks. Finally what are you even talking about when you say that I drew false google maps boundaries to fake this park? Go to google maps and check it yourself. I thought that I was taking all the leg work out of everything by posting clear details of all the proof but apparently some people refuse to be helped. I don't want to get in to any arguing match or anything but I just wanted to state the facts because I thought it was rude how you responded. Sorry if I have offended you.

  • I'm about 20 miles away from the park in Mt Vernon so if I'm trying to get this Park to play Pokemon go from my house something crazy is going on lol. That review isn't even for the park. My guess would be that it was one of the people that falsely reported the portals in the first place.

    Also could you please tell me what you meant when you said I drew false Google map boundaries? I'm still puzzled by that.

  • kholman1kholman1 ✭✭✭✭

    Satellite view appears to be a private residence.

  • kholman1kholman1 ✭✭✭✭
    edited August 2019

    Now it does seem that the bed and breakfast looks real from the satellite views. It may be there but without a satellite view or streetview of the sign they won't reinstate. Also bed and breakfasts are not valid portals so having a park designated by the owners might not be valid.

  • Just ignore them @AppIewood . Some people still argue the Earth is flat. Lol You presented all the facts so just wait and let Niantic decide. Good luck.

  • kholman1kholman1 ✭✭✭✭

    Honestly Niantic has denied this multiple times they aren't going to accept an appeal on the 5th try. The evidence in the previous appeals was not sufficient.

  • edited August 2019

    That suspectuseraccount imgur thing looks fake in my opinion. Like they just took screenshots of portal submissions and then said they were fake. The conversations that are screenshots don't really prove anything is fake, the person just simply states they are going to keep submitting portals. Nice find tho @kholman1 . Im use to some pretty intense agents in my area but that suspectuseraccount and applewood are taking it to a whole new level.

  • TheFarixTheFarix ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited August 2019

    There were several photospheres around the "park" that were clearly fakes, reported to Google, and were removed after Google investigated them. So that we see another restoration appeal for a portal on the same property brings up all kinds of red flags.

    Also, why does a "park" have the exact same street address as the bed and breakfast?

  • kholman1kholman1 ✭✭✭✭

    I don't think it is fake. I mean this is the reality we are in. People will abuse the system if given the chance unfortunately. You can clearly see from all the evidence they stitched together multiple locations on photos.

  • TheFarixTheFarix ✭✭✭✭✭

    LOL. And the false abuse flags come out once again. @NianticCasey.

  • TheFarixTheFarix ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited August 2019

    I got over 60 false abuse flags in the last few hours. Someone really didn't like that I pointed out their attempts to fake a park for a couch Pokestop.

  • kholman1kholman1 ✭✭✭✭

    they are still flagging too. I can't believe how petty people are getting. Trying to silence people actually refuting portal fraud with hard evidence for niantic to look at to take action.

  • I'm not sure if this helps, but this location has been subject to several vandalism attempts by multiple accounts on OpenStreetMap as well (I can provide full details if required). Very similar behavior is being exhibited on OSM: multiple accounts; excessive false reporting/flagging abuse where there is none; and feigning ignorance as to the specifics of the rules/controversy surrounding the edits.

    Also if you look at the position of the sign and the garden bed it's located in and its position, the sign points away from the road and towards the woods at the back of the residential property - you can even see that the GPS location in the first photo posted by OP in this thread, that the sign is located behind the house.

  • GIS doesn't lie. It's listed as a private property. Also, if they're running a hotel without the proper business license AND paying the hotel tax to the state of Illinois, they can be audited and penalized for tax evasion.


  • Hi all, due to rampant misuse of the flagging system in this thread, I'm closing it for further comment.

This discussion has been closed.