I know schools aren’t eligible as wayspot but are the wall paintings , sitting props and benches ineligible as well?
This is the first time I have heard of such an exception to the criteria. Has there ever been any topic of the rationale?
If the facility is occasionally used by children’s groups, then it could be eligible. But if the primary focus is for children, then it is not.
7 Likes
Anything on the property is ineligible.
7 Likes
This includes the outer facing facade, fence of these locations, and property boundaries.
This should be reported for removal.
Unless the Planetarium is public and is simply accessed by the students.
We have some town parks adjacent to K-12 which are public, not school, property. The teachers will sometimes let the kids play there, but that doesn’t make it school property. The play equipment that is on the campus is not eligible.
1 Like
It is public. It’s on school grounds, but it’s accessed by the general public. It can also be accessed by the students from inside the school, but it has its own entrance meant to be used by the general public on visitation days every month. Not only that, but this planetarium is part of an astronomical complex composed by it and an observatory outside town that are run by the State (and the school, as this is a State school). I know it might not count, but that school has a special regimen regarding its activities, since it offers more things to do than just regular teaching and most of those things are open to the general public, including adults. So yes, adults can access the school if they do activities there (such as art, music, vocational courses, language courses, etc). It’s a complex situation and that’s why I think it was never removed.
Thats also why I said this was an exception. A very rare exception, tho.
You used one Wayspot as an example and asserted that there was an exception to the K-12 rejection criteria, but this is speculation.
Based on your description of that school, the students at that school would include those over 18 as well as those under 18 and would not be eligible for K-12.
Also, when the Wayspot in the school was removed, only that planetarium remained, but it may be because the reporter did not include that planetarium, either intentionally or by oversight, or because the Wayfarer staff at the time misidentified it.
The criteria should not be used as an example that there is an existing Wayspot, but should be interpreted as written.
1 Like
First of all, I never asserted it was eligible. I just said something like that could be eligible and gave a possible reason that could make it eligible. Second, I wasn’t aware what age is a K-12 school as I’m sure most people outside USA doesn’t as well. And even if I did, I forgot to mention that the school has courses for people over 18, since I go there frequently and forgot that that school in particular is an exception in many things. Third, I just gave an example of a possibility. As I implied, the planetarium is used by people from out of the school, and not only by students. The general public is permitted to access it, whether they study there or not. I’ve wondered too many times why the planetarium remained when the other wayspots that were there were removed when the rule for schools came about and I always thought it could be because of that. I always thought the wayspots inside schools were removed automatically at that time. Or they weren’t? Could someone clarify it, please?
Anyway, what I’m wondering now is where this type of school, with students from ages 12 to 100, falls in Wayfarer criteria? By which rule it should abide for?
I also removed my first posts to avoid any further misinterpretations.
I have always reviewed Schools and other “child” locations as whether they are primarily for that age group.
You would obviously have adult staff / parents visiting a school but it is Primarily for children.
The K-12 rejection criteria are not limited to schools and preschools only, but also to facilities for children under 18 years of age. Even if it is a school, it is not K-12 if the facility includes a kindergarten, elementary school, middle school, high school, and college on its premises.
You cite the planetarium where Wayspot was left as an example, but have you ever given a report of its deletion even once before? Have you filed a complaint in this forum explaining in detail when a deletion was refused? If you have not gone that far, then Wayspot should not be an example. Then it was just an observation. The reason why it is not removed is a matter of speculation and you don’t know why it is not removed.
Contrary to numerous other wayspots that I requested deletion for not existing and got rejected, for this one I’ve never requested a deletion, but should it matter? Can’t I speculate on something? Because right now it seems I can’t even wonder about something in here. It seems I have to know it all and can’t even say anything wrong. Chill out, dude. I’m sorry if I inadvertently said anything wrong. I’m sorry for bringing something different to discuss. I’m sorry for trying to explain why I think that wayspot wasn’t deleted and why I think it might not be eligible for a deletion. I’m sorry for posting at all.
I will request for this post to be closed, since the original poster has its answer already and it got out of hand.
1 Like
Me too. I’ve always denied those locations, be it the school itself or a painted wall in its grounds, given that the majority of schools are only for minors and cannot be accessed by any adults other than the parents and workers.
Hi @timepink
Thanks for your suggestion.
In general it is better to hold threads open to give others the chance to find it.
And it’s also good to discuss diffrent sights, criteria understanding and interpretions.
It would be interesting to give your Planetarium a deeper look but that would be something for a new thread.
1 Like
Well thanks for the answer I was actually unsure of it as to why my nomination got rejected looks like I gotta search other areas
1 Like
I received a soft ball play centre to review and the submitter tried to push that it was a good place for the parents to socialise whilst the kids played.
Surely, the place is primarily for the children so I gave it a negative?
Problem is that I had to select “School” as the reason as “other Child focused locations” isn’t an option but you can pick loads of examples of this in the criteria.
Soft ball play center should be eligible . whats ineligible is K12 school or facilities
K-12 refers to the educational period encompassing kindergarten through 12th grade, typically representing the entire span of formal education before college or university
2 Likes
This is an example of something that I think should be approved.
Schools are rejected since children are left there by their parents as well as it being a child specific area.
Play areas including playgrounds and soft play are social spaces where parents or guardians supervise their children, so they are not ineligible
1 Like
Not saying anybody is right or wrong, just that it is easy to interpret the official guidance in different ways.
Personally, I don’t see a difference in the 2 locations. They are both primarily for kids and parants are unlikely to enjoy a group of trainers hanging about raiding…
I think there is a good consensus about this.
For example playgrounds are almost universally accepted. Rejecting play areas that are not on school grounds will typically be voting against the consensus
1 Like