Invalid Wayspot - Alpine Villas Hand-Painted Sign

Wayspot Appeals
1

  • Wayspot Title: Alpine Villas Hand-Painted Sign

  • Location (lat/lon): Ingress Intel Map / 34.204623,-118.428977

  • City: Los Angeles, CA

  • Country: USA

  • Screenshot of the Rejection Email (do not include your personal information):
    image

  • Additional Information (if any):
    Here’s the waystop with its description:

    Screenshot_20240526-232918_Ingress
    Screenshot_20240526-232918_Ingress1080×2104 282 KB

These are blatant lies.

The first lie is “vintage”.

According to several websites I found when looking for a description of “vintage items”, a vintage item is an item made between 20 and 100 years ago. Here are the websites:

If we look at street view, the sign appeared sometime between August 2014 and March 2015:

image
image1920×934 238 KB

image
image1920×934 276 KB

Older street views don’t show the sign either:

image
image1920×936 225 KB

image
image1920×935 142 KB

This shows that the sign is barely 10 years old. If you think that’s vintage, I have a vintage car from 2000s to sell you.

The second lie is “historic”.

Quite a lot of apartment buildings Los Angeles area have fancy names, just so that they can charge you more rent.

Here are some examples just from the area:

image
image1920×936 232 KB

image
image1920×936 246 KB

image
image1920×935 217 KB

image
image1920×940 190 KB

image
image1920×938 188 KB

This place is named “Alpine Villas”. Googling “Alpine Villas” with “Van Nuys” (the name of the neighborhood) and/or “Ventura Canyon” (the street) brings real estate websites or apartment listings but nothing about why this place is historic.

This place was built in 1962 according to a few real estate websites:

https://www.redfin.com/CA/Van-Nuys/7346-Ventura-Canyon-Ave-91405/home/5081413

https://www.movoto.com/van-nuys-ca/7346-ventura-canyon-ave-van-nuys-ca-91405/pid_e90fd6266vbb/

https://www.trulia.com/home/7340-ventura-canyon-ave-4-van-nuys-ca-91405-2077283702

This still does not make it historic. It’s just old. A lot of buildings in LA were built in 1950s and 1960s. Not everyone of them is historic.

Considering that the description is a lie and considering that the description most likely contributed to approval of the wayspot (I can only speculate what lies were in supporting info), please remove the wayspot.

If you decide to keep this wayspot (like in the case of this fake eagle sanctuary guy), at least remove the lies - “vintage” and “historic”. While you do that, I’ll go nominate some of those apartment buildings. I am sure some of them can qualify for artistic value. Maybe this one?

image
image1095×693 81.8 KB

2

I mean, I’ve gotten plenty of those apartment complex letterings approved. Don’t see why they’d be bad.

3

You must have confused this thread with something else - this is a rejection appeal and not a question about why this or that wayspot got approved.

5

Hi @Itsutsume
I don’t think that is ok to show the other users name in public

6

What do you mean? I posted several screenshots of Ingress portals with names of people who submitted photos, and no one ever said anything.

7

given the name of a wayspot and especially the location it’s trivial to look and see the names on the photos. this isn’t OP’s fault, it’s the fault of the ingress team for not properly implementing the wayfarer setting to opt-out of name attribution. at least i assume that’s what is going on since it works in pogo but not in ingress.

8

I posted two screenshots of some PoGo player having lures on this Pokestop, with timestamps, implying that this player wanted a Pokestop by their home. For some reason the community flagged it. I don’t see how it violated anything.

10

I am appealing a rejection, and I wanted to add that the wayspot in question was submitted by someone who lives by the POI and most likely because that person wanted a Pokestop as the POI has very little Wayfarer value. I did not post any information that is not publically available to other players. Ingress Intel Map shows pretty much every action by every player. No one seems to be upset when I post links to portals that show who did what with those portals and with other portals in the area.

11

I understand your intent. That being that the wayspot does not meet criteria. I’m not sure that it matters if it has been submitted by someone local that could benefit from it

12

Every argument matters :slightly_smiling_face:

13

The criteria for assessing a wayspot does not include individuals who may live near it.

It is not relevant who might live there or that they use the wayspot in a game.

You have made points about the wayspot its self and that is sufficient.

14

I reported another wayspot, which is a poster for an event that ran at a museum from 2017 to 2018, but apparently the fact that the event is long over (it’s 2024 now) was not enough for Niantic to remove the wayspot. I never know what might tip the scales in my favor. Better safe than sorry :slightly_smiling_face: I add all the info I can get and let them sort it out. I also checked the guidelines, but I don’t see which rule I broke. The screenshot I posted didn’t have any information that wasn’t publicly available. Did the community not like that I accused a PoGo player of creating a home Pokestop for a POI that has about 0 Wayfarer value? But just not that long ago an ambassador was pushing me to report abuse, even though I wasn’t 100% sure it was abuse. No matter what I do, I can’t make people happy here :smile:

15

Hi @Itsutsume
I wasn’t the person who flagged your comment. I’m even surprised that the comment is now invisible (not deleted, not flag by the community - missing).

In my opinion, you do fantastic work for the map. I looove how you clean up POI by POI.
BUT I don’t like fingerpointing.
Stay at the object, be the better human.
Niantic have all the (trainer)names they need to do sanctions if they want.

16

If it is about reporting a person for creating a fake wayspot, then naming the person on the form is appropriate.
If it is about the wayspot and its existence then a person who may or may not be involved is irrelevant.
The cases are different .

17

Thanks for the appeal, @Itsutsume. After reviewing the additional evidence provided, we’ve decided to retire the Wayspot in question.

18

The comment actually was flagged by the community and then later deleted.

19

If you look at the appeal, it’s about a wayspot with fake description, quite possibly created by a PoGo player who lives close to it and wants a Pokestop. Yes, these cases are different, because with that other wayspot I am still unsure if it was created or moved with malicious intent.