When submitting a Wayspot Appeal, make sure to include as much of the following information as possible:
- Wayspot Title: Wayspot Drachenwand-Gipfelbuch
- Location (lat/lon): 47.812979/13.355387
- City: Mondsee (near)
- Country: Austria
- Screenshot of the Rejection Email (do not include your personal information):
- Additional Information (if any):
- This portal can only be reached via the via ferrata, which is category C/D (more or less translated into difficult / very difficult). Every year there are several fatalities on this route - use Google for (drachenwand klettersteig tote)
e.g. ‘36-year-old fell to his death on the Drachenwand via ferrata’
‘Despite warnings - three deaths in seven months on the Drachenwand’
The portal is located at the yellow dot with a white start - too far away to reach it from the summit (you can reach the summit via a normal hiking path)
Hello @4n3g4zpk,
If I understand correctly you are reporting this as it is very difficult (possibly unsafe) to reach this wayspot.
Is the wayspot placed accurately? If not, requesting a location update would be another option.
It seems to be a log book for those who complete the difficult trail/climb?
If the above two statements are true, it seems that this is a valid wayspot. But maybe I’m not understanding something correctly?
Edit to add: there can be very remote items on trails and such that do still promote exercise and exploration. I’ll tag @Trollfarer as they may be better at understanding this request and giving advice for situations like this.
As long as you can safely stand next to the wayspot candidate, it should be okay. I usually apply the “island rule” on things like that. An island/a peak might not be fully possible to reach on foot, but you can get there by other means (boats, climbing).
Personal opinion: As a hiker that has submitted things on peaks that require climbing, i think that these wayspot are a great reward for finishing a tough hike.
I travel a lot in the mountains and submit enough hiking portals - but in my opinion there shouldn’t be any that put a player’s life in danger.
And there is a risk that an inexperienced climber will put himself in danger. Rescue missions by helicopter are regularly necessary on this route, and there have already been a number of fatalities - I don’t think this is the right environment for a game.
This is a grey area, and there isnt a correct or wrong answer to this. I do respect your opinion though, it can be too unsafe.
let’s wait for other views - personally I would consider it too risky. There are other portals on the summit that you can reach as a climber or hiker, so the dangerous one is unnecessary.
This is a very interesting situation. One would hope that people would not attempt a hike/climb for which they are not adequately prepared, but extensive evidence tells us that’s just not the case. The argument is that having a way spot that becomes part of a game entices people to engage in dangerous behavior. On the face of it, you could say adults need to make their own adult decisions and are responsible for their own actions. But, on the other hand, I wonder if having a Pokestop or Ingress portal on the summit would leave people to believe the hike must not be that dangerous just because the game site is there.
I could probably be convinced either way.
Good summary! Unfortunately, experience shows that people are acting less and less responsibly. It’s good that at least a few per cent of all portals are not accessible by car (statistics on this would be interesting, I suspect it’s less than 10%). However, above-average dangerous points should be removed from the games - you really don’t know how people interpret accessibility.
Thanks for the appeal, @4n3g4zpk. We took another look at the Wayspot in question and decided that it does not meet our criteria for removal at this time.
