When submitting a Wayspot Appeal, make sure to include as much of the following information as possible:
- Wayspot Title: cycle route 84
- Location (lat/lon): 52.146437,4.763927
- City: Nieuwkoop
- Country: Netherlands
- Screenshot of the Rejection Email (do not include your personal information):
- Additional Information (if any):
- Wayspot Title: Fietsroute 15
- Location (lat/lon): 52.155884,4.648207
- City: Alphen aan den Rijn
- Country: Netherlands
- Screenshot of the Rejection Email (do not include your personal information):
- Additional Information (if any): There is also a hiking trail attached to this post, but that is not included in the title or description.
- Wayspot Title: fietsroute 84
- Location (lat/lon): 52.147307,4.767620
- City: Nieuwkoop
- Country: Netherlands
- Screenshot of the Rejection Email (do not include your personal information):
- Additional Information (if any):
- Wayspot Title: Haarlemse leeuw van het rode kruis
- Location (lat/lon): 52.413947,4.652345
- City: Haarlem
- Country: Netherlands
- Screenshot of the Rejection Email (do not include your personal information):
- Additional Information (if any): I rejected this one during the reviewing process. Based on the supporting foto and Google Street View, this is a 99% a fake. I can’t understand why this was accepted by other reviewers and why my report was rejected. Just take a look at all the other abuse that was taken down in this area and this was probably created by the same player or group.
- Wayspot Title: Speelveld Batavierenplantsoen
- Location (lat/lon): 52.410007,4.654336
- City: Haarlem
- Country: Netherlands
- Screenshot of the Rejection Email (do not include your personal information):
- Additional Information (if any): The title is fake/lied, this is not a playing field but a normal patch of city green. There are no playground objects etc to suggest this is a playground area.
-
Wayspot Title: Kunstwerk de Meerval
-
Location (lat/lon): 52.143818,4.770300
-
City: Nieuwkoop
-
Country: Netherlands
-
Screenshot of the Rejection Email (do not include your personal information):
-
Additional Information (if any): This is on the wall of a shed on private property. You can see it in Google Street View:
It’s sad to see these wayspots got accepted by Dutch reviewers.
1 Like
in re: that last one: private property is allowed, the rule specifically says single family residences. Apartment buildings, businesses, etc are also “private property” (not government owned). The rejection message is just badly worded.
Presuming the shed belongs to the building visible behind it, it DOES qualify because that’s a multi residence building.
Those are row houses which are usually considered SFPRP
2 Likes
Those “Outhouses” will be split with entrances on either side so each house will have it’s own individual storage space.
The houses are just the modern equivalent to the terrace that where popular in Victorian times.
Still SFPRP.
View from the front showing individual homes…
1 Like
this might be a cultural / climate thing, but the fact that the building has separate exterior entrances doesn’t automatically say single family to me. Practically every apartment complex in the southwestern US does too, but they are rental property with communal management of the outdoor areas.
They are individual homes. Each having its own entrances, garden, yards.
These do not look like “short term rentals”. They will be either bought or “long term Rentals” (council houses etc).
In the UK, the biggest type of house are “Semi Detached”, so each building will have 2 homes but with defined boundaries and no communal areas these are SFPRP.
Edit: Just looked and only about 20% of households in the UK are detached. Using your logic 80% are eligible…
The property map considers each of these to be individual houses. They just share a wall with another house, but are usually independent of each other.
I think a brownstone or other types of townhouses are the closest equivalent in the US
Even in apartment complexes only items in shared spaces are eligible (I would argue that if there is a POI located in an explicitly shared space of a row house it could be eligible too)
Right, we have some houses like that too, but that’s very different from the building we’re talking about…. look at the uniformity, the consistent landscaping… that’s not being managed as separate single homes that just happen to be attached.
re: your edit presuming my logic being attached = eligible, you misread/misunderstood my previous post.
I do think we’re coming up on cultural differences here. Almost the entirety of urban space in the Netherlands looks like this but the houses are still individually owned and managed afaik.
2 Likes
I do not see this, each garden has different plants / trees.
As they look relatively new they will still look similar as that is how the builders do them, same windows etc. Return in 30 years time when people have replaced the windows and these would look very different.
Modern estates especially those meant for sale do tend to have several designs to incorporate number of bedrooms etc but they will all be made from the same bricks, all have the same type of drive etc.
Those made as “council estates” tend to be much more similar, they will often get the nickname of rabbit hutches because of the similarities.
This is from the same area but maybe a bit older so the owners (renters) have had time to make them much more individual.
Each of these is a separate property. This is very typical in Europe. Section of the terrace is an individual family home with that person responsible for the property.
1 Like
First three. Those cycling signs seems to be removed everywhere. Officially because it’s not an official trail. These signs just point to the junction with the respective number and you have to create the route for yourself. “Fietsroute 84” doesn’t exist, it’s only a direction sign to junction 84. The junction itself is eligible as a wayspot but not the signs pointing towards it. Yes it was different in the past, but nowadays these signs will all be removed as wayspots.
Hi, @AyakayA! We gave this a second look and decided to retire 4 Wayspots in question. However, we took another look at the Wayspot “Speelveld Batavierenplantsoen” in question and decided that it does not meet our criteria for removal at this time.
Also, due to insufficient evidence, we’re unable to remove the Wayspot “Haarlemse leeuw van het rode kruis” in question. If you have additional evidence to share, like geotagged images or articles, please submit a new appeal with additional information, and we’ll take another look.
Thank you for the second look @NianticLC!
I have additional evidence since you requested. There is a national database with all monumental properties/buildings in the Netherlands: https://www.monumenten.nl/. Below is a screenshot of this database for this neighborhood. There are no monuments to be found in near the wayspot “Haarlemse leeuw van het rode kruis”, this proves this is a fake wayspot. And also you can take a look at Kadastralekaart.nl - Gratis online kadasterkaart en gegevens percelen. This official boundary map shows the property where the wayspot is pinned is a private property (as are the neighbouring buildings).
Hi, @AyakayA! After reviewing the additional evidence provided, we’ve decided to retire the Wayspot in question.
1 Like
