I came across a waypot submission on the grounds of a Scouts property, which I am rejecting as K12, but am concerned about the existing wayspots on the same property which I think should also be removed as they are on property that is exclusively aimed at under-18s.
Proposed wayspot: Ant’s Place
Existing wayspot: Raywell Climbing Wall
Existing wayspot: Baden powell foot print
Location: 53.764765, -0.499538
Not a reason for rejection, but the supporting text was identical to the description: “A peaceful wooden shelter dedicated in memory of Ant — a much-loved member of the Scouting family whose spirit of adventure and kindness lives on here. A spot to rest, reflect, and share stories before heading back onto the trail. 
”
The reference to a trail is a yellow flag and the identical text is also a yellow flag. Just as for the “unique man logo” thread, these yellow flags exist alongside another problem.
I skipped these. Sure would like some guidance on eligibility.
Things on scout owned property are under 18 focussed, so that is a reject.
Scouts that happen to meet in other places (think village hall) that are multifunctional so not under 18 focussed shouldn’t affect the validity of the village hall.
So a special bench donated by scouts at a village hall would be considered on the merits of the bench and not the donors.
Does that logic make sense?
Scout owned property, such as scout huts, is a reject even if sometimes other activities take place there (such as renting out for parties). Just like schools are a hard reject even if they sometimes host non-school activities for adults.
@NianticAaron These are a set of wayspots I found before with the same problem as the Linnet Cough scout camp, but this never got a response from staff.
Apologies for the delay. We have removed these Wayspots.
Thanks. Doesn’t affect me at all as these are all a long way away from me, but it’s the principle. I only remembered this set when I got a severe case of Déjà vu.