As far as I am aware from the Wayfarer guidelines, dog parks and other large areas “make great waypoints” (source). Has this policy changed? These were both removed on the same day. One had been there for many years and the other had only been there for a month. Both are along the waterfront where there are many (human) parks and public space.
When submitting a Wayspot Appeal, make sure to include as much of the following information as possible:
Additional Information (if any): This off-leash fenced dog park was approved last month but now it is gone. It is visible from satellite view. There is no sign, but the entry gate was the picture and that is also where the waypoint was placed.
Wayspot Title: Paaltje Opruimplicht
Location (lat/lon): removed
City: removed
Country: removed
Additional Information (if any): This off-leash dog play area is down the street from the other one. This one did have a sign marking it as a dog play area, and the sign was the waypoint photo.
Here on the City’s website (in Dutch) it discusses dog play areas. It says “There are over 100 dog play areas in the city. Your dog can run and play freely on such a lawn. This is only allowed if the dog listens to its owner. Its owner must also keep a close eye on it. This is called ‘being under proper supervision’ (article 2:35, APV). You can recognise dog play areas by a sign with the text ‘dog play area’. A dog play area is not a dog toilet. If your dog does poop here, you must clean up the dog poop yourself.” The sign that is shown in the Paaltje Opruimplicht waypoint photo is the sign referenced in the text I bolded. Would an updated photo of this sign suffice? I could take a geotagged photo later that shows that the sign is still there.
As for the fenced dog park without a sign like Omheinde Hondenspeelplaats Rooseveltlaan, the City page I linked above has an arcgis map link which shows the fenced dog park areas, where it is marked as a dog park. Here is a direct link to that one pinned on the map.
Since their map only shows the fenced dog areas, the sign is the only evidence that I have for Paaltje Opruimplicht.
Any proof specific to this one instance of the dog park may fare better as proof.
From past appeals, adding the larger context can be good to show its official-ness however it may cause confusion about this one appealed object’s location and existence due to the sheer volume of information.
Sorry, I am a bit confused. What larger context? Without knowing why they were removed I don’t understand what you’re asking. There’s a fenced dog park and an open dog play area. The dog park is on the City’s GIS map I linked. Plus the waypoint photo from a month ago and the satellite/street view presence I don’t know what other evidence I could provide.
As for the open dog play area, I went by there today and it looks like that sign was moved to the other side of the grass. Perhaps when it is restored the waypoint should be moved to this point instead? I leave it up to the experts.
This is not true. It has a picture of a dog and then it says “speelweide” which means play area. This is how you would say dog park in Dutch.
Could you explain what you would want in the picture that is not already visible from the street view/satellite so I can understand what to take a photo of? It’s an open area. The sign is what turns this open area into a dog park in my city.
Gate-keeping because there’s no gates? Now that’s irony
Seriously though this seems like an arbitrary standard to try to set globally. What is typical in your neighborhood may not even be typical in the neighborhood next door, let alone a neighborhood across an ocean. For example, the other dog park that I am appealing in this thread does not have a double gate, but it has two single gates on either side of the fenced-in square visible on the satellite/street view (one of which was the waypoint photo). Would you not consider that a dog park either?
Why would that be less distinct? Both are called the same name in Dutch (hondenspeelweiden) which just literally translates to dog play area. These two dog parks are the only ones in this neighborhood and so this is where dog owners gather and socialize and get exercise with their dogs. It is very significant to this community.
EDIT: The owner of that boat parked at the water front in the satellite view even parks it here every time he is in town specifically because his dog plays here too! His boat/dog is very well known. It may sound silly but these dog parks are destinations in this neighborhood because they are unique and conveniently located.
Just trying to let you know what people are expecting a photo of when you call something a dog park. Try to give an photo that conveys the essence of this no-gate dog park similarly to the illustrations I attached. You seemed confused so I tried to help, but won’t reply again.
The issue for me is that all i see in streetview is a gated area with overgrown vegetation, no sign its meant for dogs or that dogs play there. Thats why i asked if they can show a current picture that can help prove its currently used as a dog park or dog run or anything remotely eligible.
Sorry, I should have been clearer. I was talking about this part:
This is the text in the link, it is about the official rules set up in such sites but does not particularly point towards the removed POI. Hopefully, the ArcGIS map is good enough to prove its official-ness.
What may help is to distinguish how the dog play area and the dog toilet differs, especially with photo examples of both. Also as @RoIi112 says, a broader photo showing the visual marker of this specific dog park among its surroundings.
Would also limit the proof to verifiable evidence. The excerpt about a well known community member is interesting but I doubt it can be verified without involving him identifying himself (This is not encouragement to show more info about him in this forum).
Today was a good day to take these photos because it had just started raining so I don’t have to blur anyone out of them. Saved me a lot of time. Here is Omheinde Hondenspeelplaats Rooseveltlaan, the fenced dog park. This is the one on the city’s GIS map labeled as a fenced dog area. This gate was used as the waypoint photo.
Here is Paaltje Opruimplicht from where the waypoint last was. You can see the grass and park is now well maintained (the street map view is from COVID times when the city temporarily stopped non-essential services like mowing parks).
Below is an example of a dog toilet (you can see the sign that says “honden toilet”. For a dog toilet, dogs must always be leashed, and most of the time they are very small in size and located on medians or other places where it would not be safe for dogs to play. The dog parks like the ones that were removed are separated from the street either by a fence or by distance. In the toilets the city will pick up after the dogs here, but not in parks. In my opinion the dog toilets would not make good waypoints since they are more frequent and not distinct, but I have also never tried submitting one or seen one approved around here.
Thanks for the appeal, @moyeric After reviewing the additional evidence provided, we’ve decided to restore the Wayspot “Omheinde Hondenspeelplaats Rooseveltlaan” and stand by our decision to retire the Wayspot “Paaltje Opruimplicht”.
Thanks for your response! Could you provide reasoning to help inform future submissions? Is this a policy that would extend to other non-fenced dog areas not being good waypoints? Or was there some other reason? Any guidance would be appreciated.
