This is an appeal to a wayspot report that I had submitted due to it being on k-12 property.
Additional Information (if any):
The POI in question
It’s pretty far from the main building(s), but my understanding is that since these fields are still on school property, they are not actually eligible for nominations.
Yeah, that’s a marquee for a k-12 team right next to a k-12 stadium, so seems like it falls under reject for k-12 school.
Not everything intended for a k-12 cohort is against the rules, but if it is on school grounds, that’s a no-no.
Yep, that’s what I thought too, but my report seems to have been rejected…
Yes, there’s a little bit of nuance to that rule - it’s specific as I understand, to schools and day care centers.
My (former) high school, because it’s old and urban, doesn’t have much room for on campus sports facilities. For baseball, they leased one field in a city sports complex, exclusive use with rights to decorate. But it’s literally several km away from the school itself. (it’s six exits away on an interstate!) The other fields (some are soccer rather than baseball) in the same sports complex (except for one, maybe just nobody bothered to nominate it?) were all stops or gyms already. I got it approved (after appealing as it was originally denied for being at the school; probably people just saw mention of the school and stopped there?).
However, if the field is physically attached to the school, yes, it should be denied.
Technically this one is across the street from the main campus, but it’s a residential street, and less than a block away. There’s a big sign out front designating the field as belonging to the HS.
In that situation, I would consider it one property, unless there’s non-school buildings in between. I know of a high school (and there used to be two, but one’s street was removed) that have a public street running through the campus between buildings, still one campus.
In my opinion…..( let’s dive into the grey areas 
)
It doesn’t matter if a sports field is at a distinct location. If it is being used primarily/exclusively by an under 18 organisation then that falls under the rejection of under 18 focussed.
If it is a specific rented section of a bigger complex ( this is a messy scenario 
) then I would expect that same logic to apply. I would expect there to be signage indicating that this section was for the exclusive use of that group ( it could be a school or other organisation ).
If it was a case of a regular booking covering a specific time slot when the group will use the facility and the rest of the time open to all that doesn’t sound under 18 focussed so ok.
I would ask if a sports field really is “primarily” for under-18… while the players may be in that age group, games are attended by parents, grandparents, older siblings, other members of the community…
When it’s physically attached to the school, then it would naturally fall under the rule as being part of the same facility.
But when it is a separate location, that is being used ONLY for sports? How is that different from, say, a soccer field or a basketball court at a city park?
The property records site I found was not something I wanted to dive into: Look up property information - King County, Washington
I also found the following School Warning / Speed Sign before the Sports ground that does indicate that it is classed as part of the School Grounds.
Good Luck.
Thanks for the appeal, @therealgarthor! We gave this a second look and decided to retire the Wayspot in question.
