I’ve been trying to add a bunch of new Wayspots at a local Catholic Church in my city with great success, but I’ve been informed in a local Pokémon GO Discord that one of the ones that were previously there has been removed.
I took particular notice to this because I was the one that submitted that one in the first place. I’m not sure if it’s related to the new ones that I’ve submitted and have been accepted.
33.237738935735635, -97.16275780155674 are the coordinates of the Wayspot in question.
This appears to be the drop-off area for the school, so it was correctly removed if that is where it was.
The red pin is accurate within a few feet. It’s a negligible difference.
There’s also a school there too, but the spot in question is more associated and physically connected to the church itself, even if literally closer to the school building. You see the big paved path on the satellite view.
If you have evidence this is not on the school property, you should present it.
I’m not trying to argue with you directly or be rude, so I apologize if it comes off that way, but I’ve got some backing.
The legal description for the entire property is for a/the Church, not a/the school as per the Denton County government. The owner itself is the Diocese of Fort Worth.
If you are asking for staff to reconsider the removal, then you should move this to Wayspot Appeals
It didn’t go away because new ones were added, but submitting new ones may have brought it to reviewer’s attention to report it.
I was more curious than anything if it had something to do with the newer ones, but yeah, that makes sense.
I moved it to Wayspot Appeals because after reading the CAD legal description of the property, I feel that’s a strong enough argument (for me at least.)
I guess since this is Wayspot Appeals now, I will include what I can and summarize the previous comments in the thread.
Location: Denton, Texas
Lat/Long: 33.237738935735635, -97.16275780155674
Wayspot Title: Our Lady’s Rosary Garden
Additional Information #1: There wasn’t a rejection email and I did not appeal anything since I was just told about it by someone else in my city.
Additional Information #2: The Wayspot in question belongs to the Catholic Church itself and not necessarily the school. According to the CAD for Denton County, the entire property is legally described as Church property, not school property.
@SpindaHuntr Hey, I noticed there are some Disc Golf holes around here as well.
It is kind of in the name that the property is also a school. I would argue that the following wayspot is purposefully misnamed and that all wayspots on the property should probably be retired.
Immaculate Conception Catholic Church Metal Cross & Welcome Sign
33.237028,-97.161118
Also, the school’s website mentions the association with the church (https://www.catholicschooldenton.org/parish-links) and the church’s website mentions the school (https://www.iccdenton.org/ , scroll to “VISIT OUR CATHOLIC SCHOOL”).
There are clearly two different addresses on that sign, so that’s not really an argument.
There are lots of Wayspots associated with things that are ineligible but themselves are eligible. Not everything is so cut and dry.
Just because of the completist in me (and to save a few iterations either way this goes):
I think it’s ridiculously silly to take the stance that all the Wayspots in the entire Church area are ineligible. There are Wayspots there that aren’t even in the same building. I guess you could argue proximity would make some of them ineligible, but I don’t even agree with that fully. There are, without a doubt, people who attend the church but not the school. They’re still allowed to use the facilities that are outside of the school building. I definitely think that anything inside of the school building itself is ineligible, but you’re making it too black and white and reality usually exists in the gray.
You would have to argue that every single Waystop at/in the University of North Texas in the same city are ineligible because TAMS exists and high school students attend it.
(post deleted by author)
I am not sure why you felt the need to list all these wayspots which are not pertinent to the appeal in question.
They are adjacent but are not subject to appeal. Perhaps it would have been better to follow the normal process if you had an intention for the validity of these to be considered.
Having read online information I think I have a reasonable understanding of the situation, although local knowledge would obviously be better.
It is a common situation of the development of a school on church premises over recent years starting with use of the church and leading more recently to the building of bespoke accommodation. This is obviously on the plot of land that the church had and is adjacent but separate. The school and church have separate addresses.
The school is preK to 8. It has a large sports hall. It is limited in the sports it offers.
There are a range of sport wayspots on the whole site. I would assume that volleyball and basketball are the only ones used by the school and that the others are there for wider use not school use. Most of sports pictures are in the sports hall not outdoors. It would be useful to have current photographs of the areas which do not appear to be sectioned off. This would help establish the status of the playground and Mary’s Garden in part There is a second playground that is more clearly linked to the school and is fenced off and is not a wayspot. The play equipment there is of the type suitable for the age ranges of the school.
The church appears to be a thriving hub for the community, busy with regular services ( they offer 4 on a Sunday ) and other community activities fullfilling a good match with the criteria. The large carpark is primarily for the church with access to the church based activities throughout the day. Car parking has been expanded next to the football field, which may indicate that this is used buy the wider community it is certainly not listed as a sport offered by the school.
There is a close association with another church.
Most of those wayspots listed obviously belong to the church and are not attached to the school.
