Wayspot Title: Estructura de escalada en Burtzeña Plaza
Location: 43.280481, -2.977551
City: Barakaldo
Country: Spain
I would like to appeal this wayspot removal. It is a new children play structure in Burtzeña Plaza. I don’t know exactly which wayfarer criteria doesn’t meet. Here you have the wayspot image:
It is close to the Playground, but it is a completely different structure. It has its own informational sign and it is focused for children between 7-12 years. It is not viewable in Google Maps satellite view because it is new, but it can be seen in other platforms and in Google StreetView:
If it’s part of the same playground set that the other Wayspot / Waypoint already covers, there is an argument for it to be considered as a duplicate. Can you demonstrate that this isn’t part of the playground set that is already covered?
The removed wayspot is not a Playground, it is a climbing spot for children. Which has a completely different use case of the Playground nearby. It also has its own informational sign with information about how to use it and so on.
I think that generic playgrounds are one thing and this is a different one. In fact, the climbing spot was built years later…
Just for info, I’m trying to help you build a case for getting it back, if it is eligible. But I hope you can see different perspective in that it could be seen as being part of the playground. There could be other explanations as to why it was removed. When I looked at Google Maps Satellite View, I can’t see it.
Thanks, I hope someone from wayfarer staff reads it and clarifies why it was removed… It was accepted in the past, so someone decided it met wayfarer criteria…
I am watching this topic to see what staff says. I also had that thought that it may have been removed as being part of the bigger playground. But I also would have submitted this separately signed area separately per this clarification:
I can’t think of any other reason for it to be removed except property owner request, or a mistake that it belongs to the school across the street, but if that were the case, why would they leave the playground?
Watching with interest. Staff does always respond to appeals, fyi.
Thanks for your message, this is exactly the case. The playground nearby is focused on families with children in the age of 2-6 years. On the other hand, the climbing structure is focused on children in the age of 7-12.
Hope this helps to clarify why it meets wayfarer criteria and that it shouldn’t have been removed.
Hay algún cartel que especifique que son parque o zonas de juego diferentes? Puedo ver el de la estructura de escalada pero ninguno para la otra parte. A simple vista no parece estar diferenciada una de otra más allá de estar simplemente un poco más alejada, quizás un cartel en la otra zona pueda sugerir que son zonas diferentes.
Esta afirmación es algo errónea. No todo lo que se acepta significa que se haya aceptado correctamente, a veces duplicados o cosas no válidas son aceptadas. En mi opinión parece formar parte del mismo parque infantil pero quizás puedas demostrar de alguna manera que no lo es.
Pasaré por allí, y miraré si hay otro cartel junto al antiguo parque infantil. Pero vamos, que se ve claramente que cada estructura está enfocada a diferentes rangos de edad. Y si esto es así, los criterios indican que se pueden hacer diferentes solicitudes. Además de verse que fue construida posteriormente.
En cualquier caso, aún no se ha esclarecido el porque de la eliminación, a ver si puede pasar alguien a indicarlo.
I went yesterday and took some photos. There is a panel for each section of the Playground. Each section is focused for different age ranges. As it said in Criteria Clarification Collection:
“If there are separate, clearly divided playgrounds for young children and older children as below, however, each can be nominated individually.”
This is the case, each zone and structure is prepared and focused for different ages although I initially made a mistake saying that the age range was 7-12… See the following photos:
En este caso al mostrar las nuevas fotos se puede observar carteles diferentes para ambas partes que, sumados a la distancia entre ambas partes, podrían llegar a considerarse suficientemente diferentes.
Ahora queda en manos del Staff decidir qué acción tomar, por lo que por favor ten paciencia hasta que lleguen a este topic.
Would you be able to share the reason for the retirement of the Wayspot, or is it not for public consumption? It may be useful for us to ensure we don’t submit something similar in the future if they are not eligible.
Please consider providing a reason of why or which criteria does not meet. It is frustrating to nominate things, that for us/me meets wayfarer criteria, including your Criteria Clarification posts, and then find that these have been removed…
We do a hard work nominating, and then they are suddenly removed without explanation…
Is someone at Niantic re-purposing the climbing structure as part of an infant playground? Or, was misinformation supplied with the climbing structure nomination and with OP’s appeal?
Objects built in different locations, at different times, and for separate target populations are not normally aggregated in this manner.
We’re left suspecting that there is a very large discrepancy between Niantic’s internal criteria vs. our guidance or that the Wayspot removal system is fatally flawed.
I suggest editing the existing wayspot to add a picture of its sign. Even if it isn’t voted primary, Niantic reviewers should be able to see it, for future discussions.
