In Poland, a government initiative called “Orlik” was launched couple years ago. Its goal was to build publicly accessible, free, and 24-hour sports complexes, primarily sports fields.This initiative was intended to promote an active lifestyle and sports, especially among young people.
Most of these complexes were built next to school buildings. However, these facilities were often constructed on a designated plot of land and, as such, are not strictly school-related. They are municipal property, and the municipality, as the owner, is responsible for their maintenance. Since the launch of the program, over 3,600 facilities have been built or are under construction.
In my opinion, these properties meet all Wayspot criteria even if they are directly adjacent to the school grounds but are not its property. How should they be treated during nomination and evaluation?
Wayspots can be located on ground next to schools.
The only issue comes in when it is difficult to tell what is school property and what isn’t. A playground or sports facility which is fenced off from the school and has clear signs indicating pedestrian access from the street, and which doesn’t look like it is part of the school grounds, is normally OK. A gate providing access from the school is not a problem.
An example of a problem would be if there is a low fence between the sports facility and the school buildings, but a high fence around the rest of the sports facility. Even if officially part of the school, reviewers would struggle to accept this.
I had a look on streetview. The fence around the complex looks the same as the fence between the sports facilities and the school buildings. Visually, it’s tricky - purely from the images I cannot be certain about eligibility.
If you know for certain that these facilities are not owned by the school and are treated separately from the school, then they are eligible. You would need to include proof in your supporting information, but may still struggle in review.
i get ur frustration buddy i got a playground next to a Scool with an Proof informational Board signs that its open to public and perfect accesibal and keeps on getting rejected i went multiple times taking pictures and stuff all doesnt matter the church next to scool gets it poke stop aproved xd so poke hunters still go to the church next to it but the playground of my town gets ignored wich is basicly proper show on maps as playground and on a webpage described as public playground
People lie a lot in wayfarer to get their submission approved so people dont trust words easily. Put yourself on other people shoes.you need links and photos to show that its not part of school.
in pokemon go itself i can onley put one pic of the main spot and the area but on wayfare i can indeed put 5 pictures so i will look for the information u guys made to made a public picture to show its accesibility with some one trough the entrance or so and all tips given and give it a go again i gues
Hi @Wrzosek
Welcome to the forum from me as well
I think you’ll need something official (a link or a photo of a boundary map) to get your nominations accepted.
I’ve looked up the location on OSM and it looks like school ground:
Yes, because many of them were built on former school playing fields that previously served only the school.
I found a sample Orlik sports complex regulation at one of the local government units.
The “ORLIK” sports complex is owned by the Municipality and administered by the School.
§ 2.
Entering the facility constitutes acceptance of and compliance with these regulations.
§ 3.
Use of the pitch is free of charge, open to the public, and open to all students at all times, with priority given to classes held at the School.
Could this be considered evidence? Is it enough that the regulations issued by the local government unit state that it is a public and generally accessible place?
I think you will struggle with these. With that evidence, if I was reviewing, I would have to reject for K12 (targeted at under 18s). They would not be appropriate for a gathering of Pokemon Go players while children are using them.
Is that §1 of the official goverment site?
In previous threads it has always been important who ownes the ground but this quote includes that the school is administrative responsible, so they could be seen as official representatives. So my best guess at this point is still k-12 rejection
