VPSActivation failed

Hello Niantic Support Team,

I’m reaching out regarding the unsuccessful VPS activation of my home scan. The message I received states:

“We have attempted to activate this location but the mapping process was unsuccessful. This could be a result of a number of factors, such as poor suitability of the location for VPS, insufficient scans, or corrupt data.”

I have uploaded at least 15 scans of the property in order to create a VPS location for a Halloween AR web experience. As the property owner, I would like to be able to activate VPS at this location for use in 8thWall.

Here is the scan link for reference:
Geospatial Browser Link

Could you please advise on the next steps I should take?

I appreciate your guidance and look forward to resolving this so I can proceed with the Halloween AR experience.

Thank you for your support

Hi Andres,

I’m sorry for the inconvenience and any delays this may have caused. We’ve manually requested activation for this location and you should see this reflected on your side within 4 hours. If this location still does not activate, please reach back out so we can investigate this further.

Kind regards,
Maverick L.

Hi,

I was able to successfully activate the VPS but the mesh was unusable. I believe it is because there were a lot of night time scans.

Anyway to improve the mesh? I have added at least 5 more day-time scans now.

Best,
Andres

Hi Andres,

I’m glad to hear the location is at least activated now. When you say the mesh is unusable, what is your use case? The downloaded mesh is meant to be used to place AR content.

Kind regards,
Maverick L.

Hi Maverick,

Thank you for clarifying. My use case is to anchor multiple Halloween AR assets (via 8th Wall) so they appear consistently positioned relative to the house and walkway. For that, a clean and accurate VPS mesh is critical, especially for occlusion and spatial alignment.

The mesh I initially downloaded was very noisy and fragmented, which made it difficult to place content reliably. I suspected this was because many of the earlier scans were captured at night. Since then, I’ve uploaded 5 additional daytime scans to improve coverage and lighting conditions.

Could you please let me know:

How long it typically takes for the new scans to be processed and reflected in an updated mesh?

If there are recommended best practices (scan density, time of day, angles, etc.) that would improve the mesh quality for this type of use case?

I’d be happy to rescan again if needed — just want to make sure I’m following the optimal process so the location can support a stable AR experience.

Thanks again for your help,
Andres

Hi Andres,

You’re very welcome! Thank you for providing that information.

  1. Scans take approximately 2 hours to be processed and reflected in the mesh; while re-activation attempts take about 4 hours.
  2. Scan the points of interest from different angles, trying to capture where you’d like your users to localize from. Time of day and weather condition variations help. Ensure gradual and steady movements of your device while scanning for more comprehensive coverage.

Let me know if you have any other questions!

Kind regards,
Maverick L.

Hi,

I tried to upload additional scans using that feedback and reactivated the mesh but it is still poor quality. It does not even resemble remotely the home.

Here is the scan link for reference:
Geospatial Browser Link

Best,

Andres

Hi Andres,

Thank you for your patience. We’ve manually updated this location on our side and this mesh should be of higher quality now. Are you seeing that reflected on your end?

Kind regards,
Maverick L.

Hello,

I see its improved a bit, but still lacks the front of the house in the mesh. I can see it includes the side walk in front of the house and one of the neighboring houses.

Geospatial Browser - Account - Niantic Lightship

Hi Andres,

With the improvement, I would encourage you to continue performing scans to capture more of the house. Your mesh should look much better with a few additional scans.

Kind regards,
Maverick L.