Restoration of removed wayspot
SiIverLyra-PGO
Posts: 952 ✭✭✭✭✭
Revenge reporting around here is back...
Title of the Wayspot: The Eileen Platt Centre
Location: 32.073706,34.830659
The center is visible in this photosphere. As well as in this 3D aerial view. It's a big building. It didn't go anywhere.
While I'm sure that a recent, geotagged photo will be requested despite the evidence above, I'll also ask - again - for the team to look into this ongoing case malicious reporting of existing wayspots. It's a waste of everyone's time as I again and again prove that the reported wayspots exist.
Tagged:
Comments
Bump.
I hate tagging, but that seems to be necessary nowadays...
@NianticGiffard / @NianticVK ?
I'll have your report prioritized, we apologize for the delay.
Hello @SiIverLyra-PGO! We have given it another look however standby our decision to retire the Wayspot. Unfortunately, we won't be able to share our internal policies for the same.
@NianticGiffard how can we understand criteria and eligibility if you can't tell us the reason why it was removed and cannot be restored? from what we know of your policies, this did not meet removal criteria. was it location sensitive? k-12? did the group personally ask for the wayspot to be removed?
Not much info on the web about the place, but what I did find said:
Community Centres
Eileen Platt Centre, Ramat Gan, programmes for all ages and background- programme leadership empowerment, kids bar/bat mitzvah, single parent facilities, prevention and treatment of domestic violence, cultural and fundraising activities – for women and children, olim, social educational for those from lower socio economic groups.
Reading this, I would suggest it was removed upon request as a potentially "sensitive location".
Exactly!
Alright. So a place that offers help for people who suffer from domestic abuse (- it's not even a shelter, which would be obviously considered sensitive, it just offers therapy services as one of its many activities -) is considered sensitive. Wish that was explicitly said literally anywhere in the criteria, because to me it seems more like a strong point to why the location is socially significant, rather than ineligible.
In any case - why the insistence not to tell me this in the first place? Why not just say outright that the location is considered sensitive? Like @Himillsy-PGO said, how are we supposed to know the criteria like this?