-
Wayspot Title: Friedenstaube
-
Location (lat/lon): 53.694101,13.249305
-
City: Altentreptow
-
Country: Germany
-
Screenshot of the Rejection Email (do not include your personal information):
-
Additional Information (if any): Duplicate of “Stadtwappen Altentreptow” at “53.694056,13.249504” as it just shows a different view of the same transformer station.
-
Wayspot Title: Kirche Ihlenfeld - Wandbild
-
Location (lat/lon): 53.588206,13.330611
-
City: Ihlenfeld
-
Country: Germany
-
Screenshot of the Rejection Email (do not include your personal information):
-
Additional Information (if any): Misplaced Duplicate of “Gemeindehaus Ihlenfeld - Wandbild” at “53.587983,13.330551” as it just shows a different view of the same transformer station. Also wrong location according to the satellite view.
Hello,
Friedenstaube and Stadtwappen Altentreptow appear to be 2 different pieces of art, one with a pigeon and the other with a coat of arms. Same with Gemeindehaus Ihlenfeld - Wandbild and Kirche Ihlenfeld - Wandbild, with one being a mural of a community center and the other a church.
Transformer stations may have more than 1 pieces of art on them; this is not uncommon even for walls to have multiple murals on it, and each is eligible if they are distinct from each other. I don’t know if any of these will be removed, due to them being distinct art pieces, just on different sides of the same transformer box.
As for Kirche Ihlenfeld - Wandbild, if that doesn’t get removed, you may want to request a location edit. If you can’t edit it in-game, you can do so via help chat on the Wayfarer website.
Both duplicates should not have been accepted in the first place. They were improperly submitted outside the 20-meter distance radius and subsequently moved.
The 20 meter rule only applies to Ingress; PoGo uses S2 cells.
The Lightship map is used by all Niantic games, and each have different density/inclusion rules for game play locations. These do not have any effect on Wayfarer and the Lightship map.
All 4 of these are unique pieces of art to me. I don’t think any should be removed, and none would be removed to improve game play, as that may be seen as manipulating the map, which is abuse.
Yes, and this is about Ingress. Abuse is exactly what happened here, namely submitting to the wrong location and moving it to a distance within 20 meters, even though the paintings are less than two meters apart. This is actually the manipulation of the map that you described. To allow it to remain as it is would be tolerating this abuse.
The correct solution would be to keep one wayspot at a time and simply add the other’s photos to the remaining one. It’s still the same object at all.
I also don’t see any point in continuing to discuss this with a normal player. The moderators have the final say here.
The best solution that I can see is to keep all Wayspots, and request location edits for the ones in the wrong location. If a location edit can’t be done in-game, help chat on the Wayfarer website can be used.
Again, Wayspots can be very close to each other, as long as they’re for different and distinct Wayspots. It’s unlikely that these will be removed because other Wayfarers abusively moved them to manipulate their game play over others.
Keep in mind there is a way to report abuse in Wayfarer, and you may want to look into it. The link is at the top of the forums, as well as below:
Thanks for the appeal, @tenkterra. We took another look at the Wayspots in question and decided that they do not meet our criteria for removal at this time.
The complete lack of context on why a given decision was made causes frustration for the community and fails to educate people.
In this case, you could have added something like “because even though the only reasonably possible way for both of these to sync to Ingress is through purposefully misplacing one of them and then later moving it, we are only concerned with correcting proximity abuse that affects Pokémon Go.”
Relying on the community to explain why you have made or will make a given decision allows false statements to proliferate as users guess at prior decisions and treat them as new criteria statements not made or clarified elsewhere.