Ingress should now be running normally. Thank you for your patience while we worked to resolve this unplanned server outage.

Appeal of portal removal: Welcome to Butler

justinkswjustinksw ✭✭
edited December 2019 in Removal Appeals

Category: Appeal of portal removal

Title of the Portal: Welcome to Butler

Location: 43.212451,-76.805494

City: Wolcott, NY

Country: USA

Screenshot of the Rejection Email: N/A - appeal of removal

This portal was removed recently after being in the system for over 2 years. The sign is still located in the same place (I just took this photo two days ago). The shoulder of the road allows for safe access of the portal and the speed limit here is 30 mph. There are many welcome sign portals in the network and this one in particular is believed to be removed due to faction bias. I can provide more photos if needed as well.

Wolcott and Butler are very small towns and this is a great way to get more people to visit these areas and see what the area has to offer!

Photos to support your claim:

Below are 4 portals for examples of similar portals approved. I can provide many more upon request.



  • Visited the site on Nov. 27th and the sign is still there in its original spot.

  • AlaralynAlaralyn ✭✭
    edited December 2019

    This portal was valid and likely reported despite its validity out of spite as it was often used as an anchor.

  • Been to this portal; nothing unsafe about it. Classic case of removal due to excessive levels of salt.

  • Personally, I think a distinction should be made between "street signs" and "welcome signs" because "Candidate: City/street sign = policy reject 1 star UNLESS historically/culturally significant" is so vague.

    I think STREET signs shouldn't be valid. There are potentially hundreds of street signs in a city, but very few "Welcome to XYZ" signs. So I do feel that such a sign has more cultural/historic significance.

    And as for "unless its in a low density area" well, Butler is kinda the outskirts of nowhere so perhaps that is relevant.

    As for it being removed, someone(s)? submitted it for removal and it had to be approved for removal by someone(s)? else, so what do i know?

    I do think the policy is too vague in any case.

  • TheFarixTheFarix ✭✭✭✭✭

    Someone posted this to the subreddit, which came from an old AMA. Don't know which AMA though.

    Q66: S. C. - Are welcome signs for townships, municipalities, boroughs, cities, and towns valid portal submissions?

    A66: NIA OPS says, “Only if they have any historical or cultural significance.”

  • Portal removals for "invalid" portals that have previously been approved should have better reasons for removal than "doesn't meat current-day criteria" - in this case the candidate is still there, is not on private property, not on school grounds or obstructing emergency services, and has safe access along a rural road in a low-density area. There are no safety issues and the object exists.

  • TheFarixTheFarix ✭✭✭✭✭

    It was removed for lacking safe pedestrian access (sign beside a main road with no sidewalk or other footpath). Given that the wayspot doesn't meet criteria in the first place, Niantic is very unlikely to restore it.

  • justinkswjustinksw ✭✭
    edited December 2019

    Cudaone makes a very valid point. Where do we draw the line for rural portals? There are literally thousands of portals in rural areas with no shoulder forcing players to park in the road to access. Somehow those are safer than this one and more valid? As far as cultural "importance": what do the other 'Welcome to' portals contain that this one doesn't? It states the name of the town and when it was established (which is much earlier than I ever thought). The fact that the sign is smaller should not take away from its value. If having the portal gets people here who wouldn't normally be here, I guarantee you the town would appreciate their presence! Small towns love business from visitors!

    Also, according to the Ingress Support page for removal of portals;

    "There’s no longer safe pedestrian access to the Portal." - This implies something changed about the portal location or its surroundings. Neither of these occurred for this portal.

    Post edited by justinksw on
  • Appeal Denied- Thanks for the appeal, Agent. We have taken another look but stand by our decision to retire this Portal.

  • That's disappointing. OBVIOUS faction bias going on here. Is Niantic going to remove the thousands of portals on the side of roads in the interest of safety, or is it only if they start to get used as an anchor and the other faction reports it?

  • Jo0LzJo0Lz ✭✭✭✭

    These signs are so generic, they really shouldn't be portals in the first place. Am curious as to what the people removing this portal did, usually portals that are live even though they shouldn't be, are never removed.

  • The portal wasn't removed until it was being used as an anchor. Was safely accessed for over two years previously.

  • Same thing happening around here. Opposite faction reporting every anchor portal and getting a lot of them removed. Ridiculous behavior and Niantic doesn’t care.

  • Ok this is a hard one. Was it removed because it was invalid or because one faction kept using it as a link anchor?

  • Please "enlighten" me as to how all of the rural sign posts on the side of rural roads (there are THOUSANDS of them) are somehow still being approved in the current process and are somehow considered 'safe' but this one is different.

    They either all meet portal criteria or none do. Can't have it both ways. If we're going to be removing portals like this then Niantic should seriously reconsider their criteria for portal approval.

  • TheFarixTheFarix ✭✭✭✭✭

    Motives on why the portal was reported doesn't matter. What matters is whether the portal met the criteria for removal. Niantic has reviewed the appeal and confirmed that it did meet the criteria for removal.

  • Motive SHOULD matter. I can give you literally thousands of examples of portals which would be more "dangerous" than this one. Yet they are still in the game and portals just like it continue to be approved.

    Use one for an anchor and all of a sudden it matters.

  • TheFarixTheFarix ✭✭✭✭✭

    You claim that the motive for reporting the portal was purely malicious. I claim that its use as an anchor brought the fact that it was invalid to wider attention. In the end, it doesn't matter because the portal was invalid. The fact that other invalid portals exist doesn't justify restoring another invalid portal. As the saying goes on Wikipedia, "Other **** exists".

  • justinkswjustinksw ✭✭
    edited January 12

    Did you miss the part where I pointed out that portals with the exact same access ARE STILL BEING APPROVED NOW? But hey, they're not being used for fielding so who cares huh?

    I get it's never coming back, I'm over that. It's frustrating though because portals are still being approved that have the same "safe access". I'll still make res players put lots of miles on their cars to come get portals in my area. 😎

    Post edited by justinksw on
  • It’s a “Legacy portal” so it shouldn’t be removed is a pretty weak argument. Even if it’s been there since the early days of the game niantic has now determined it to be invalid under the current submission rules. Nothing stays the same and the game has evolved since then. Not to mention now 2 other games are using the Wayspots. Could have been a pogo player that reported it. They must have had a good reason to remove it.

  • justinkswjustinksw ✭✭
    edited January 13

    It wasn't a pogo player. Sadly the person who submitted it for removal doesn't have the guts to admit it.

  • So ya know that we would have told you if we were the ones who reported it. Since we are also the same people that show you screenshots of us reporting peeps for cheating.....When you tell us to report people for cheating.

    We have nothing to hide.

Sign In or Register to comment.