This wayspot is at the lighthouse, which you can only access by climbing over the rocks along the edge of the impoundment, which you are officially not allowed to do after someone died out there in 2019. Here’s a local news article from the time, which includes photos of the big red signs telling you not to go out there: Access to Huron's piers blocked | Sandusky Register Signs warning people to keep away dangerous areas
And here’s a photo which shows the first (easy!) part of the rocks (it’s a few years old, there’s more graffiti on that sign now):
People absolutely do go out there on those rocks and access that wayspot, which is why it has multiple photos with a lot of votes–maybe that’s why it’s still up? But, that’s not a sidewalk. There is no path. People are climbing on and over rocks that weren’t intended to be used for this purpose, until they get out to the end, at which point if you want to get to the lighthouse itself, and it gets worse. It may be a safe enough place to go fishing, but it’s not a safe place to be playing a game that encourages you to use your phone while you walk.
The game does tell you to be aware of your surroundings and to not go anywhere that you personally shouldn’t be going.
I’m going to assume that this lighthouse has regular maintenance performed on it, and that the maintenance crews can safely access it to perform that maintenance? If so, that likely means the wayspot doesn’t meet the removal criteria, as whilst safe access may be limited to a few people, it is still safe access for them. Anyone who doesn’t have the right to be there should not attempt to access it, and if they do, they’re doing so at their own risk and going against what the game tells them they should be doing.
There really isn’t any regular maintenance being performed, because little to no maintenance is needed. It’s set up to avoid having to do that.
But, there is definitely climbing involved, closer to the lighthouse, not just careful walking. Yes, you can climb reasonably safely if you know what you are doing, but is something you have to climb to reach normally allowed in the game?
I think there is an important distinction being missed here.
The removal request states that the lighthouse “can only” be accessed by climbing over the rocks, but that does not appear to be correct. This is a lighthouse at the end of a pier on a navigable body of water and it can also be approached/accessed by boat.
The fact that one particular route from land is closed or unsafe does not automatically establish that the Wayspot itself has no safe access. People climbing over rocks despite warning signs would certainly be unsafe behaviour but that is an issue with that route, rather than necessarily with the lighthouse as a Wayspot.
For removal on pedestrian-access grounds, the relevant question should be whether there is any legitimate and safe way to access the Wayspot, not whether players can safely walk to it using the most obvious route from shore.
So unless boat access to the lighthouse/pier itself is prohibited or there is some other reason that approaching it from any other method is not legitimate, Scopely made the right decision with the evidence presented, it does not establish that the Wayspot has no safe access at all.
This was the argument people were using to deny mountian top markers. Just because it was hard or you needed specific gear and experience did not mean it was inaccessible. Only accessible to a certain group is not a rejection reason.
In this case I’m not commenting about the lighthouse since it clearly looks forbidden.
You’ve rather invalidated your own argument there.
You correctly point out that requiring specific equipment or experience doesn’t make a Wayspot inaccessible and a boat is simply another form of specialist equipment/access.
So if the lighthouse can legitimately and safely be accessed by boat, if the land route was prohibited it doesn’t establish that the Wayspot itself is inaccessible. You can’t argue that specialist equipment is irrelevant for mountain Wayspots but then treat needing a boat as disqualifying or that the Wayspot is forbidden.
Oh I’m not saying the lighthouse is ineligible, just that I haven’t looked at it. In the very early days of ingress there was a lighthouse discussion and Niantic said that if you could stand on it then it was safe enough. People went to extreme lengths to make lighthouse waypoints since they were so valuable for game control.
Calling it “not a safe location” is far too broad, subjective and opinion based. It is clearly safe enough to have an operational lighthouse there and to be legitimately approached from the water by charter boat (see all the local marinas), accessible for maintenance and building inspections and repairs.
What appears unsafe and prohibited is one particular means of access, climbing over the rocks from shore. That is not the same thing as the location itself being inherently unsafe or having no safe means of access.
If “difficult or unsafe to reach by one route” meant “unsafe location”, we would have to remove countless mountain top, island, crossing a road, hiking trails, biking trails and other remote Wayspots.
And whether its isolated in an L14 cell or affects Gym creation is completely irrelevant to the removal criteria.
IMO: This is a case against “Real World Common Sense” and “Personal Reading of Wayfarer Criteria”.
Using the boat example, what if I hired a helicopter to land on a traffic roundabout. I could get out and have safe access to a nomination there.
There will be workers who deal with maintenance on said roundabout, still classed as not safe.
I understand that a location does not have to be accessible to everyone such as a work place but if the only people accessing it are the occasional maintenance crew using specialist equipment I see no reason to keep it in the game.
I know the warnings are that we should keep an eye on our surroundings but if some-where’s removal is rejected as 2 people visit twice a year against the potential danger of thousands visiting the area IMO it should definitely be re-looked at.
There are significant volumes of motor and fishing charters passing this Wayspot daily, its a active navigated recreational harbour.
The example of landing a helicopter on a traffic roundabout is an invalid argument. Passing a Wayspot in a recreational harbour by boat is legitimate traffic and easy to access. Landing a helicopter however on national infrastructure is illegal.
Do they have access to the lighthouse itself, passing it is not criteria otherwise my roundabout example would be fine as I can pass on the pavement.
I used the roundabout as a common example as most people here will have encountered a nomination on a roundabout, not that many will have encountered a lighthouse that is inaccessible to the public.
I have not stated that it should be removed just that it is definitely worth staff taking another look.
The arguments for this location being unsafe have failed based on each individuals opinion or individual interpretation rather than zooming out.
If you really want to find a legit Wayfarer argument then use the distinction on Scopely’s precise interpretation of pedestrian access.
The US Gov says access inside is prohibited, highly likely that immediate external access (i.e mooring and walking around it) remains prohibited but certainly usable by any of the hundreds of recreational boats passing it as, in the coastguards words, the “recreational navigation point of Huron Harbour”.
Case in point (which could a precedent) is the Replica Statue of Liberty at the Susquehanna River but one could argue this was dangerous due to the rapids and not safety of a recreational motor boat.
Again, if each location was to suddenly strictly abide by the exact rule, half of pokestops would be removed overnight.
