Hello. I know I should add all of the details but I won’t as I need to understand what the reviewer meant. A restaurant in my town was closed down (imo due to the horrid food) and they removed a mural. Me and someone else are attempting to make the wayspot more accurate and the reviewer seems… a bit crazy to me? I really want to know what they mean by “repurposing” should we just remove the wayspot entirely?
Yes, that is what you’re expected to do. A mural and a restaurant are two very different things. Attempting to repurpose the mural wayspot into a restaurant wayspot is not allowed, because whilst the mural was eligible to be a wayspot, it doesn’t necessarily mean the restaurant would meet the eligiblity criteria. If you feel that it would meet the criteria, then you’re expected to submit it as a new wayspot, so that it can be evaluated against the criteria. If the mural no longer exists, then you should submit a removal request for it.
And to make it even more confusing, if the mural has simply been painted over with a new mural for the new restaurant, updating an old mural to a new mural is NOT considered repurposing.
If I’m reading it right, neither the mural nor the restaurant exist any more.
The old restaurant that the mural was for. The restaurant was called “solstice” so there was a moon phase mural. Oddly enough the photo update was accepted.
The basic problem is that this is clearly repurposing, based on what you submitted
Old Description: [a mural]
New Description: [a restaurant]
The wayspot was either for a mural or a restaurant. [I can’t tell!]
If it was for a mural and the mural has changed, it usually can be updated to reflect what the mural is now.
If it was for a restaurant and the restaurant has changed, the wayspot usually needs to be removed and a new one submitted.
That does happen frequently, that the new photo is accepted. Either the automated process accepts, or community reviewers who haven’t been to the forum to learn that repurposing is bad think, yep, that looks like what is there.
