Appeal rejected removal request in dangerous 'park'

When submitting a Wayspot Appeal, make sure to include as much of the following information as possible:

  • Wayspot Title: Ligschommel

  • Location (lat/lon): 52.710682, 4.796057

  • City: Oudkarspel

  • Country: Netherlands

  • Screenshot of the Rejection Email (do not include your personal information):

  • Additional Information (if any):
    The reason for appealing this rejection is the fact that it’s dangerous to access this location, as it is mainly used as a dog park using a car park. It it accessible by foot but one must cross a road where cars come from driving 80 km/h and suddenly have to brake for pedestrians. See the screenshots added below to see the situation as it is now.

You can see it’s a bike line pedestrians have to walk and they walk up to a crossing where the vision is bad. Cars come with high speeds and usually are still driving above speed limits there before entering the neighborhood.
For this reason, this gym should be removed as it is unsafe for people to be walking across here. The park is not suited to be accessed this way, as the normal entrance is used on a different side where there is a car park.

Secondly, which ties into the first argument is that this gym is not in any residential area. Because there is a gym there, people walk there anyways. See the screenshot below to see that there is in fact no residential area around and to see the overall situation with traffic. To the left is the park and to the right is the neighborhood. This is the edge of the neighborhood.

This is where my stance is based on, unsafe access and outside any residential area and therefor not suitable for a gym.

Please consider this removal appeal, thank you!

Welcome to the forum @NielsW16

This does not meet the requirements for unsafe pedestrian access, as the wayspot is in a park with footpaths leading directly up to it. It doesn’t matter if you have to drive to the car park to access the park on foot, you can still safely stand at the location, and the park looks to have plenty of paths to walk about on.

Regarding the crossing to the park, that is a marked crossing point, and you can see a dog walker using it to safely cross the road on street view, so even if that was the only way to access the park and the car park didn’t exist, it would still be deemed to have safe pedestrian access.

If you think your own safety is at risk then you are welcome to not use the wayspot in question and/or contact the local authorities if you think the safety of the crossing needs improvement, but by wayfarer standards, there is nothing wrong with this wayspot as far as I can tell, and so the report was correctly rejected.

11 Likes

Thanks for the appeal, @NielsW16! We took another look at the Wayspot in question and decided that it does not meet our criteria for removal at this time.