Wayspot Removal Appeal: Christiansborg

Wayspot Appeals
1

When submitting a Wayspot Appeal, make sure to include as much of the following information as possible:

  • Wayspot Title: Christiansborg
  • Location (lat/lon): 55.675834,12.579311
  • City: Copenhagen
  • Country: Denmark
  • Screenshot of the Rejection Email (do not include your personal information): N/A
  • Additional Information (if any):

I am appealing the removal, but also hoping for clarification as to why it was removed (especially if it is not to be reinstated). This is our Parliament building. It obviously still exists. It doesn’t seem to be a removal due to a report from the property owner, given that multiple Wayspots still exist in the palace compound. The location corresponds to where you enter the palace grounds proper from the riding square, which seems like a fine choice for the location too.

Picture at the time of removal:

image
image512×288 57.4 KB

I am pretty confused about why this would be removed honestly, and hoping you would be able to clear it up.

Best regards,
Jakob Helms

EDIT: Of course, after rummaging why it would be removed for a while, right after submitting I see that a duplicate Wayspot exists at 55.676384, 12.580659 - located at one of the entrances. As it has a - in my opinion at least - worse picture, a suboptimal description and an incorrect name (the proper English name is Christiansborg Palace, not Christiansborg Castle), I think it would have been much better to remove that one if it was indeed removed for being a duplicate. If possible, I would also love to hear when the two respective Wayspots (the now-removed Christiansborg Slot and Christiansborg Castle) were created. Thanks again, Jakob Helms.

Wayspot Removal Appeals: "Maritime Antiques 1831" and "3 Bees" + possible patttern of abuse
2

Thanks for the appeal @JakobHelms ,

As you have rightly pointed out, the Wayspot in question is a duplicate of another one connected to the same object. As a result, we stand by our decision to retire the Wayspot.

You can submit edits if you believe these aspects are incorrect/improper.

3

Thanks for confirming Aaron - I will certainly aim to update it to be better, though I regret that the effort has to be made :-).

Would you be able to clarify when the respective Wayspots were made? Is there a certain method to which Wayspot gets retired when a duplicate is reported - is it just the one the report is made on?

As feedback, I would like to add that I do believe it would have been better to retire the Wayspot that remains. I do believe it was more fleshed out and accurate; also, it was a Gym in Pokémon GO. With the data from the Wayfarer map, I suppose you could make a decision about which of two Wayspots to retire in case of duplicates based on that data. I am not saying abuse happened here, but there is an angle to abuse in creating a duplicate Wayspot and then reporting the existing Wayspot that you could close by prioritizing Wayspots appearing in the game over those not appearing in the game - which of course isn’t perfect either, given that one would be able to do it the other way around, but still, I think it’s worth giving it some consideration.