Hard to reach portals are the best ones. If you're not willing to team up with other players / go on adventure to capture them, probably ingress isn't the right game for you....
To have Extra information without looking into factions or whatever or telling lies about access:
Taken from the official website of "de Griend" (I can not post links atm it seems.
On this site owned by state ministry of LNV and I&W it clearly states the islands access:
The island of Griend can be seen in several ways:
From the boat between Harlingen and Vlieland or terschelling you can see the island. The boat sails along the island.
Via Street View in Google Maps You can view the island."
And yes you can fly over.
Also the website of the owner of the island, Natuurmonumenten, states no access for public only for 2 Island protectors/birdcounter to catch tresspassers/poachers and to do some research on the number of birds.
There is no mention of access to public or otherwise possible way to visit the island by excursions making it again: no save pedestrian access.
Yes, in the past Natuurmonumenten did allow excursions (1 or 2 a year) to the island but since the UNESCO and Article 20 protection rules those are gone since a couple of years. When the portal was made it was okay but now the access situation has changed that happens to places.
Although the portal is legit the access is not possible.
And why is none mentioning official sites and access rules but making up stuff/hear say. Only use founded information that can be found on the official sites of the owner and other information sites about the island. No comment puts those in because you either want to hide the truth or make the illusion it can be accessed.
If somebody has an official link that visits by public are possible (even if it is once a year) please provide I could not find any.
The access situation did not change at all, your making stuff up. The island is designated to nature, birds specifically, and has been since the start.
There is no hazard in the portal location, so it's safely accessible.
Scientist, suppliers (Rijkswaterstaat) and an accasional (highly popular) cleanup excursions allow members of natuurmonumenten access to the island once or twice a year. Last year there was also an excursion to plant some new type of grass. It's accessible, but it's a rare privilege to get on the island.
@GreenVillan its on the agenda on the site of natuurmonumenten. 9 september is the next possibility.
Link for the next trip: www.natuurmonumenten.nl/friesland/agenda/schoonmaakactie-griend#2019-09-09T08:00
Wow, this whole duscussion and flagging of each other just shows what impact the portal has on the health of the community.
Appeal Denied-Thanks for the appeal, Agent. We conducted another review of this location and have confirmed our decision to retire the Portal in question.
Some kind of reasoning for this decision would be appreciated. There are quite a few portals out there with the same or similar access restrictions.
I think that the number of people commenting on this shows that players on both sides care about the precedent being set here. It can have a massive impact on both sides therefore clarity and transparency from Niantic is required on the reason for the decision to remove this portal.
We have previously seen clarification that a portal is valid even if it’s only accessible by a member of staff or only accessible at specific days / times for example portals within museums or castles, so what is the reason that this portal has actually been removed?
The only other reason I can think of is that’s it’s been specifically requested by the land owner. If this was the case it would quickly put the matter to bed as players would need to accept that land owners don’t need to give consent to having portals on their land.
@NianticCasey could you shed some light on this please?
What was the removal criteria used?
Niantic is never going to tell you people why the portal was removed, because they still operate under a Google-influenced policy of privacy and discipline, which means:
1) They don't give you details of complaints (especially property-owners' complaints) because that breaches the complainant's privacy (and may even expose their identity).
2) Giving too precise details about why a portal was disqualified (or a player banned, for that matter) encourages people to game the system by tailoring submissions to the standards.
That was Google's philosophy for all user conduct and user-generated content. Niantic began as a Google project, and inherited that philosophy.
The system is already cheated by people making up stories of trespassing to bring landlords to the point, to open tickets with NIA to get portals removed. With high possibility, this is what happened here, otherwise I really can't explain why this portal was violating the rules, as there is no difference between this portal and hundreds of other portals.
Btw. maybe someone should explain to the Natuurmonumenten, that in future likely less people will join the tours :p
Thanks for the appeal, Agent. The location in question was removed by the property owner, therefore, it cannot be restored at this time.