Since I am not allowed to reject playgrounds as an object of mass production (I still don’t understand why), I would like to understand the admissibility of dividing a playground into parts. Here’s an example that came up in my review today:
I am sure that this is the same swing, because in both photos you can see exactly the same sandbox and a spring swing in the shape of a horse between them.
Unfortunately, I can’t pinpoint the exact location of each element of the playground, because Google Maps has an old image and the building appears to be under construction.
Well, let’s get back to the topic: is it right to split one long playground into its component parts or should it be considered a duplicate (because it’s the same playground)?
I am sure that you are familiar with this clarification:
Whether these appear separate to you requires using your best judgment. And if you decide the pieces should not be accepted separately, whether you should mark it as a duplicate of the playground or as not distinct from the playground will also depend on using your best judgment. There isn’t always a “right” answer. How the submitter presents it to the reviewers will play a large factor.
Hi, thanks. Sorry, I hadn’t seen this post before, but common sense said it was wrong to split the playground into parts. However, in our country there has never been a division of the playground into age groups, as presented in that post. I think this could be used when evaluating sports fields and equipment too?
There is a similar clarification for sports fields:
Again it is up to your best judgment and the presentation by the submitter as to whether a field should be a separate Wayspot.
For example, for me if field is separately numbered with a unique sign, I usually consider it eligible as a separate Wayspot. If a big grassy space has been divided up with moveable soccer goals into individual “fields”, I have to be convinced on those.
This was an example of the kind of division you might see. If the play areas are sectioned off from each other, I usually consider them as separately eligible Wayspots. There isn’t a single “rule”.
If it is together like this, I submit them as one. If the individual stations are spaced apart with separate numbers or signs as stations, I submit them separately.
Yeah, i think this is a language issue. I would call this a fitness court and only submit it as one wayspot. Sometimes, there are fitness “trails” where exercise equipment is located along a walking path. In those cases, i can see adding each fitness station as a separate wayspot like i would a trail marker. But not one consolidated area like this.
To go along with what others have said, here is something I recently did (or at least did not mess up), and to some extent still working on because waiting on reviews.
Velasco park, which is internal to an older development:
I submitted two wayspots: Velasco Park and Velasco Park: Fitness Area. The park was centered more between the two playgrounds than GMaps places its marker. The Fitness Area, I put in the rectangular space in the southeast corner of that image. Rather than creating a wayspot for each piece of equipment (in either spot), I listed them in the description (and additional photos).
Another park in the same community, Don Juan Park:
In this case, the small circular spot just north of sidewalk is a one of those triple-shot basketball things (toss the ball in, not sure where it will come out to see who catches it) is one wayspot.
The park itself is another. Even though it too has both a playground and fitness area, they are touching each other, and I think should be one wayspot. Again, listing the equipment along with photos.
In both cases, as well as the third park in this community, I include things like the picnic tables, grills, and the like as part of that over all wayspot, The Park.
Parks are often the subject of debate. Parks vary widely in size and purpose of use. Some parks consist of a single playlot, while others are larger and include multiple playlots, picnic areas, pavilions, walking trails, flower gardens, fishing ponds, fitness areas, event areas, stages, and other areas. In addition, there may be objects to look at and enjoy, such as statues and fountains, as well as cafes and museums. If the park consists of multiple areas, the park itself and each of the areas encompassed may qualify as a Wayspot. If the park consists of only a single area, there would be only one Wayspot. However, in Japan, such a park may also have a Jizoson or shrine enshrined within. I would look carefully at the nomination before reviewing or submitting it to see if it qualifies and if there is any overlap with another area.
This is not an example of playground fragmentation. A lot of this is eligible on its own merit. A fitness station next to a playground doesnt mean they are 1 waypoint just hecause they are adjacent.
A good tip is: look at the ground under the thing. If it’s one concrete pad, or one collection of woodchips, or one fenced in area - it’s likely one collection. (Insert: the usual disclaimer that this is not a hard rule.)
I’m glad you didn’t pin in the middle, which would “interfere with play.”
I would have put pins where the sidewalks enter the play areas, aka the “point of discovery.”
Phrases in quotes above, come from Niantic. Use at your own discretion.
