I don’t mind zero-size locations at all.

What about points such as the south pole? Still opposed to the idea in general as well.

The south pole does seem a little shaky (and equally so under the current rules, which require locations to “have a size or area”), although Wikipedia does at least give us the plinth and flags of the Ceremonial South Pole, which would be big enough to support twenty-five shivering adventurers.

Why are you opposed to the idea? The theme feels a bit strained if we need to buy a car to get 200km to enter a cathedral, but we can also (without making a single wish) somehow coexist at every point along a 20,000km line.

.  We should be able to occupy a point.  We should not be able to occupy a line.

Are there any points on the Earth’s surface that have their own Wikipedia articles, other than the various poles? Couldn’t we just use “Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station” and “North Pole-37” instead, for the sake of a simpler rule?

Sigh. The south pole is acceptable because it is a fixed point. When you say you are on the Prim Meridian, which isn’t even real in the first place, you can have an infinite amount of locations. Which is scammable.

I prefer the other one.

I like two-move teleportation.

Challenger Deep (my previous location) is another example of a single point on Earth that has a Wikipedia page.

Challenger Deep’s a region, not a point. It has an area.

CoV