When submitting a Wayspot Appeal, make sure to include as much of the following information as possible:
-
Wayspot Title: Parque Qd 107
-
Location (lat/lon): -15.830141, -48.032209
-
City: Brasília, DF
-
Country: Brazil
-
Screenshot of the Rejection Email (do not include your personal information):
-
Additional Information (if any):
This location contain two Wayspots that are duplicates: Parque Qd 107 ( -15.830141, -48.032209) and Praça QD 107 ( -15.830270, -48.032002). The name of the place is “Praça das Araras”, as per the Google Maps location on Google Maps. The praça is a small place, that has a small park for children and a couple of benches. However, these couple of benches do not constitute a whole other location (implying the need for a different Wayspot), and neither does the park.
They are, in fact, the same location, shared by the same community for the same exact purpose on the same exact physical space, as evidenced not only by their extreme physical proximity (only 0.02 miles apart, as per image below), but also by the fact that benches and the park are part of the praça. Thus, the praça should be represented only by a single Wayspot, and not two of them.
This is so very much so that the pictures for these two Wayspots are actually duplicated too. See third picture below:
It’s the same exact benches from this one:
This further shows that these Wayspots are, in fact, referring to the same exact spot, being just two different angles of it. Therefore, since one of them is already in-game as a Wayspot, there should be no need for two of them, as it unfairly benefits players from that region. I believe that one of them should be removed.
In my view this park area has become a bit of a mess over time, as it has changed.
There are several elements that are distinct
The original photo for Parque Qd 107 did feature the children’s play area.
But completely different views have been added over time. Those were probably wrongly duplicated when the other elements were being submitted.
And looking at streetview there is a new set of play equipment in that area complete with new fencing.
There has evidently been a location move at some point as the end result has been 2 gyms ( the children’s play area and the picnic area) in one Level 17 cell.
The skate bowl ( also a gym) also seems to have poor pin placement, on the walkway.
As the multi use games area, children’s play area and picnic area area all separate and distinct, there is no need to remove any of these.
I’m sure for game play purposes you wouldn’t want to lose a gym.
A nice up to date photo of the children’s play area, and having the older not relevant ones removed would be good, for tidying up this area.
There is also a shelter that could be submitted.
Fair points, but the way i see it, it’s the same place in the sense that it serves the same social purpose. When people go there, parent’s may sit on the benches while their kids are playing just a couple meters away. So it’s functionally just one place: the praça. The benches and the play area to me are just like different sides of the same building (like maybe a restaurant). Them being in the same level 17 cells only reinforces this.
While having two gyms for that is beneficial for players nearby, i think it’s also an unfair advantage over other players farther away from the artificially inflated number of gyms agglomerated there. Especially considering it’s the same level 17 cell, and only 3 gyms are allowed per level 14 cell (if im not mistaken).
The children play ( exercise but don’t tell them 
) and to play together they socialise. The picnic area is for socialising that parents sit there whilst children play on the equipment or the multi use area or the skate park is neither here nor there. They are sitting and socialising. There will be times when whole families are picnicking there.
They are designed for different functions, and each meets criteria. 
That the 3 gyms are in close proximity is not a wayfarer issue.
Well, i respectully disagree, and i want niantic to review this.
Yes they will respond, this gives you a chance to expand on your case.
Thanks for the appeal, @lukerivers24! We gave this a second look and decided to retire the Wayspot in question.
