I think this is not a duplicate

[OhMaikGosh]

I continue having issues with a recently build park, this is so frustrating…

The park is still not visible in Google Maps, but it is visible in other platforms and several 360 photos I have taken.

All my nominations are getting rejected by the community even if I provide enough supporting information or they are being marked as duplicated by either the community or during appeal process. This could be because I explain it in Spanish during the appeal process and could lead to a misunderstanding.

This is my nomination:

Title: Parque Infantil en Serralta
Description: Zona infantil para el entretenimiento de los más pequeños.
Supplemental Info: El parque se ha reconstruído recientemente. Por lo que desde google maps no se ubicará correctamente. Hay disponible una foto 360 que he subido donde se puede ubicar. Os dejo enlaces de ambas fotos 360. https://maps.app.goo.gl/aW6pYjXJTKfkg9xW7 y https://maps.app.goo.gl/RuNT76m96EjXcEef8 Gracias.

With this info I got it rejected as “Duplicate” during the review process and during the appeal process.

The reasons are that this nomination is a duplicate of the park itself. Which, by the way, had to be accepted also during an appeal process…

There is a wayspot that marks Parque Serralta, which is the name of the park and contains a lot of different things. A playground, a football court, a zipline, a calistenics structure, a parkour zone and more…

As far as I know, wayfarer criteria allows to nominate things inside a park or place even if you have nominated the park/place itself. I think this is the case, one thing is the hole park, which is the wayspot “Parque Serralta” and another thing is the playground, which has no name, “Parque Infantil en Serralta”, which is transalted as “Playground in Serralta”.

In case you need any satellital photo here you have one where you can see the hole park (red square) and the playground area (green arrow).

I had a similar issue with another nomination, you can read the conversation here.

This is clearly not a duplicate

I’m having several issues with a recently built park and I’m stating to feel a little bit frustrated… The park is still not visible in Google Maps, but it is visible in other platforms and several 360 photos I have taken. All my nominations are getting rejected by the community even if I provide enough supporting information. After being rejected as “Mismatching Location” I have appealed them and until now they have been accepted. In my last appeal someone has decided that my nomination is a d…

Please consider deduplicating this nomination. Different areas in the same park are allowed per Wayfarer criteria and I think these are completely different.

Thanks

[P1dg3ySlayer]

So, I understand your frustration and I would equally be frustrated with a duplicate rejection. However, I would need to further understand how this playground set is different to the neighbouring playground set that exists nearby.

If the playground sets were significant distance from each other, I could see an argument as to why it should be accepted, but am not sure if it should be considered distinctly different from each other.

[OhMaikGosh]

Which playground set? There is no wayspot of any playground nearby… In the map you can see two, but none of them is a Wayspot…

What you see in the top left is the Zipline, which is not part of tha playground since is for people above 12.

[P1dg3ySlayer]

This one.

If you can prove this zipline is not part of the playground set, you might (and I say might) have a case.

[OhMaikGosh]

It is different since it has another informational sign with different age restrictions.

Nevertheless, they marked as a duplicate of the Park not the zipline… the wayspot in the south.

[P1dg3ySlayer]

It’s not me you need to convince. The Niantic Staff on this forum may side with you on this one, but you may need to present a compelling argument as to why you believe that your nomination should be allowed. All I am doing is presenting a possible reason as why it was rejected. If you are able to present an argument that can justify why it should be accepted, it may work in your favour.

[OhMaikGosh]

Thanks for the help. See attached a 360 photo. There you can see how each one has a different ground color and everything. Reading the panels it states that each zone has a different ground color, for different ages and uses.

Google Maps

[P1dg3ySlayer]

Colouration of the ground is irrelevant in this case. I know Ziplines and Playgrounds in close proximity have been accepted before, but I don’t know if they are seen as different sets. I’ll await for Niantic or other more experienced reviewers to clarify this bit for me.

[elijustrying]

The part where you stood for the 360 photo has a shelter structure above it. I would have expected it to give shade but it seems to be made of glass. Tell me more please.
This structure for me defines the area beneath it which has play equipment suitable for small children and to be inclusive for those with disabilities as distinct from the other areas.
In some places like the UK these distinct areas would probably be fenced off to keep them separate but that is clearly not how this is segregated. I think I would also consider the tubular slide and the associated play equipment. It is not under the shelter and there is a walkway between it and the other areas.

[OhMaikGosh]

It seems to be made of glass, but it is not, it is made of a thick non-translucent plastic. It provides a partial shade during the sunny days.

The area below the shelter is made for children around 2-5 years. Where I live almost all the playgrounds have equipment for childs with disabilities, but all are mixed to prevent their isolation and to allow to play with others. There is a swing for children with disabilities and a simple one next to it. There is also a big one for those than cannot sit and have to be lying down.

The tubular slide and surrounding elements are for children around 5-12 years. It has a big slide, and several elements for them to climb or play with others.

And finally the zipline which is behind the sheltered area, this is only for childs around 6-12, it is a big zipline, of around 25 meters.

Hope this help to differentiate the areas.

[elijustrying]

Thanks for this.
I would certainly refer to the 2-5 years play area as having the sun shade as that to me defines it as a specific area. You can then mention the range of equipment. We are slowly catching up in the UK about making playgrounds more inclusive which is why it was more noticeable to me
In my view the shelter is doing the equivalent of a fence and creating 3 distinct spaces. The seating also delineates this as a separate space. For the other 2 spaces you will need to describe in the supplementary information that they are distinct - not under the shelter/ no shelter, seating associated with sheltered area has its back to this area and separate focused seating is provided.
I can’t see any separate seating from your photo for the zipslide which to me indicates it is aimed at older children not requiring a watchful parent or guardian.
That is how I would view this area.

[OhMaikGosh]

The thing is that I already appealed the nomination and it was rejected as duplicate.

Now the image is connected to another wayspot and I would not be able to nominate it again…

[TheDoctorBird]

Thanks for sharing @OhMaikGosh Playgrounds do cause issues.

Some people will nominate every part of the playground. Monkey Bars, Slide, Climbing Frame, Zipline. And this may mean it is rejected as people already see a previous nomination for equipment as a “playground”

Many people nominate just the playground. And use one piece of equipment for that.

Some people think that if there is 20 odd m between each piece of equipment it is not one playground but can be considered separate.

Some people will look to see if all pieces enclosed in one space. Larger playgrounds with multiple play equipment or near roads/sea etc will be enclosed (stop the kids running off).

So when nominating people may just see a picture nearby of other play equipment and go playground reject as duplicate.

I don’t think there is one answer to this as there can various scenarios at play. And it can be frustrating. Have to say what a great playground. It’s huge!

Good luck with other nominations and thank you for raising.

[TheCaptainAbdul]

That is not a duplicate. The park is not the same as the equipment. The equipment can be moved so if it’s moved does that make it eligible? I had a rest stop denied today because it was listed as temporary. It has tables benches and bathrooms and water fountains. That’s not temporary. It’s permanent. Sometimes I think the way fairers have their own standards. The goal is to have people be able to explore their areas and have poke stops

[cyndiepooh]

the rejection reason that starts “temporary/seasonal” continues “or not distinct.” many times a rest stop is not seen as a distinct spot.

[OhMaikGosh]

I should nominate it again? What happens with the photo? I can see it as a secondary photo of another wayspot, this can cause ML auto rejects…

Can anyone from Wayfarer staff take a look to this appeal and change the decision if they declare it as a valid nomination?

Thanks

[elijustrying]

I think the best way forward is to resubmit, perhaps with a different photo.
But this time make sure the title and description are very distinctive and that the difference is drawn out - the kind of points that have been made. Hopefully with a much stronger case it will get accepted.