When submitting a Wayspot Appeal, make sure to include as much of the following information as possible:
-
Wayspot Title: 宜蘭運動公園 風雨球場
-
Location (lat/lon): 24.738134, 121.751731
-
City: Yilan
-
Country: Taiwan
-
Screenshot of the Rejection Email (do not include your personal information):
-
Additional Information (if any):
I am reporting a duplicate Wayspot for the basketball court at Yilan Sports Park.
The Wayspot “宜蘭運動公園 風雨球場” (24.738134, 121.751731) is a duplicate of “宜蘭運動公園籃球場” (24.737650, 121.751177).
As shown in the attached satellite imagery and site photos, both markers point to the exact same physical structure—a large sheltered basketball court with a solar panel roof. The two Wayspots are only a few meters apart within the same architectural footprint. To maintain the integrity of the map, these two should be merged under the original primary Wayspot.
It looks like there is more than one basketball court at this location so it could be okay to have more than one wayspot
Hello and welcome
Helpfully a nearby wayspot has a map of the site and as you can see it shows 10 separate basketball courts the position of the wayspots appears reasonable probably not on the field of play.
It is ok to have separate sports facilities have separate wayspots.
Hello and Welcome,
Personally I agree with the OP. The play areas should be distinct which I would take as…
Basket Ball Courts = 1 Wayspot
Tennis Courts = 1 Wayspot
Track and Field = 1 Wayspot
Is the “Great Lawn” used for Sports - 1 Possible Wayspot.
There could be others around the area for distinct POIs.
If they had different styles such as Lawn and Clay Tennis Courts then they would be distinct.
In past discussions this was never a “black and white” answer. My argument would be a bowling alley. Each group would play a different lane but it would be expected to be nominated as 1 wayspot.
Not wanting an argument, just putting out a different opinion.
1 Like
I would agree in general although I guess there isn’t a consensus on this since I remember asking about a somewhat similar situation on WDD a while ago and people were also unsure. The other question is if this meets removal criteria if it isn’t technically a duplicate
This matter isn’t actually that complicated.
It depends on whether the applicant initially applied for the ‘entire basketball court’ or just a ‘single basketball court’.
(1) Judging from the Wayspot title,
宜蘭運動公園籃球場 (Yilan Sports Park Basketball Court)
and
運動公園風雨籃球場 (Sports Park Covered Basketball Court)
both refer to the entire basketball court.
If I, applying for a separate basketball court,
my wayspot title would be changed to ‘Basketball Court No. XX’ or ‘Basketball Court in the Northeast Corner’
(There are clear numbers of basketball court on the map notice board @elijustrying mentioned. The one in the lower right corner is 1, as it increases counterclockwise, the one in the upper left corner is 10)
(2) Judging from the pictures,
the photos of these two wayspots do indeed cover multiple basketball courts,
indicating that the applicant DID indeed apply for the entire basketball court.
Therefore, these two Wayspots are duplicates.
The newer wayspot, should be removed!!!
3 Likes
Thank you for translations 
Please be patient posts in this appeals section can take time for staff to review and assess.
A week is not unusual.
Thanks for the appeal, @hazelnutbread! We gave this a second look and decided to retire the Wayspot in question.
