Dodgy submission while reviewing made me check the existing wayspots for duplicates.
51.501719, -0.276327
Existing Wayspot: Rope Playground
Existing Wayspot: Happy Fish Climbing Equipment
Wayspot for review: swing
These are all wayspots for individual equipment in a single playground.
I saw that and Rejected as Duplicate. Didn’t take enough time to notice the already existing duplicate…
This happens all the time where I live and I reject them if the playground has been accepted as a whole already. However, I myself am unsure whether it is appropriate to reject if there isn’t a unified submission for the playground and people nominate just one of the pieces of equipment
I asked a similar question before and the answer I got was that nomination of single piece of equipment should be accepted if no other wayspots in the play park exists.
Any following nomination should then be Rejected as Duplicate, sounds strange because you may state that the swings are a duplicate of the Slide but think of any nomination in the play park as an anchor for the whole set.
My worry was that if someone has nominated an individual piece of equipment it is like they plan to nominate the rest but as long as all Reviewers stick to criteria and reject the rest the nominator should start to understand.
My golden rule is distance and methods of separation.
If each play piece is at least 20m (or yards) apart and not enclosed. Then I will consider each piece as their own POI and address according to criteria.
IF 20m (or yards) apart BUT enclosed together. one nomination potentially depending on distance as sometimes some pieces stand apart from the rest of the play area
If each play piece is less than 20m apart and they are enclosed together. Definitely one nomination only.
I tend to not use duplicate. As a swing is a swing not a slide. So I use the accuracy criteria. I will use the reason field to say/call out description/title is wrong as it is a play area and there is a risk of nomination stuffing.
And like @SlimboyFat71 said my immediate suspicion is every play piece will be/has been nominated . So I tend to dig in a bit more…
I don’t know where these distance numbers come from. Being separate play areas is what makes separate play equipment eligible. There is no distance given in the clarification:
The clarification also does not give instructions on which rejection to use. I think that “duplicate” works, but that “not distinct” would be suitable here if one just can’t bring oneself to use “duplicate” in this situation. I would love to see staff comment on this, but it doesn’t seem like the kind of issue they usually engage in.
I haven’t seen any of these yet surprisingly as London would fall in to my usual review area.
I agree that I would mark these as Duplicates, and would try to duplicate on the sign for the play area/playground or what looks like the “main” piece of equipment in the park (in my local one, that’s the swings, but maybe it’s the slide in this one or something).
I use “Duplicate” in the same way I would when someone nominates a “Church Sign” then tries for the Church as well.
The sign is an anchor for the church. Although it feels like I am saying that a church and a sign are the same they both represent the same thing, the Church.
My distance helps me be clearer in what I am reviewing. If in an enclosed fenced area and bunched up then one. If wide apart and no enclosed area evaluate as individual against the normal criteria.
As I said a general rule. The enclosed bit really helps too.
I can go to a few community parks where due to the spacing of the play items you could nominate the whole park as a action/playground… But that is rather rare compared to most playgrounds
