Currently there is no criterion due to the lack of uniqueness and theoretically the next playground is acceptable.
But in the neighboring courtyards there are literally exactly the same “children’s houses” on the playgrounds.
These aren’t duplicates. They’re simply similar playgrounds designed from the same elements. In our region, this is a common practice, as usually one company is responsible for the improvement of the area.
As long as the object can be verified that it actually exists at the location given, then yes they are all valid and acceptable.
I seem to spend a lot of time hanging around playgrounds while Wayfaring, it is certainly true that a lot of them use exactly the same equipment.
It took me a while to realise that these two playgrounds I submitted that were 20km apart were almost identical..
Identical objects at a distance of 20 km sound quite acceptable compared to identical objects at a distance of 100 m
As long as the 2 playgrounds are separate from each other there is no distance requirement.
As was said previously you are assessing each submission on its own merits.
In the duplicate check you are assessing if it’s the same object and place. So a similar physical object at a different location - there is no distance requirement - is not a duplicate.
All these points have already been made.
In your posts you appear to keep looking for a way to justify rejecting objects that when other wayfinders look at them are eligible and acceptable. I think this demonstrates that you need to consider your reviewing practice.
Why do you keep referencing my previous posts? I asked about this example because I came across it while reviewing the nominations just today. What’s wrong with my interest in this question? It’s not my fault that in my region 50% of the nominations are only playgrounds and, accordingly, my questions will concern them.
Playgrounds are eligible as a place to play. Even if the equipment is the same, if the play area is separate, it is a great place for exercise and being social:
