These are great questions. There are clarifications on some of them, and this collection is a reference I turn to often:
On some of these, you simply have to use your best judgement. A blanket statement can’t cover it.
For example, tree markers. If the marker is a destination along a tour through the arboretum, I think it does qualify as a unique point of interest for exploration. If the arboretum has simply put a label on each tree, my personal opinion is that it does not. But I often see these submitted and accepted.
We would be glad to give opinions on individual submissions you see in review.
Playgrounds - generally a playground is one coherent area, so individual pieces of equipment are duplicates. However, sometimes you get separate and distinct playground areas.
Trail-markers in the same place on one pole or two poles next to each other are duplicates. If the poles are on opposite sides of the trail, they might be considered separate.
Arboretums are too large to be treated as a single wayspot for the entire area, so separate trees could be eligible.
I sometimes see this sort of thing with museums where somebody submits some exhibit or other. Although the exhibit is usually of interest and is worthwhile, it might not be distinct from the other exhibits in the museum. So if you have a lot of statues then they might also fail to be distinct, but of course some might be distinct in their own right.
In comparison:
I nominated a new “playground for toddlers” (a huge distinct sandbox area with 5 small and large playground equipements specific for toddlers and a bench for parents), but it was considered “double” since it was added to an existing larger playground area for older children including zipline and huge climbing towers (just to make clear the areas aim for different target groups).
If the “Toddlers” and the “Older” areas had distinct areas (such as the Toddlers being fenced or separate areas of hard surface) then they should be 2 waypoints.
The Ziplines do seem to get a pass being as they are (or at least was) a rare piece of equipment.
As per Criteria, separate pieces of equipment should not be nominated. The only exception would be if they are spread out along a walk. Even when they are spread around a relatively small field the whole field is the playpark.
These “rules” signs should not be accepted, except to represent the playground in the absence of any other sign. A rules sign does not meet any criteria. I wonder if whoever submitted this area got this accepted first? In that case, the entrance sign should have been marked as a duplicate, in my opinion.
As far as equipment inside the playground, this does seem to be a small playground where the individual components would not be individually eligible. I would mark these as “not distinct” in review.
I have seen huge playgrounds where separate play areas would be separate destinations and eligible separately.
