Wayspot Removal Appeal: Safety Concerns

Wayspot Title:
穿山甲反光鏡

Location:
24.996817,121.58198

City, Country:
Taipei City, Taiwan

Screenshot of the Rejection Email:

Evidence to support the appeal:
Photo Cover of this wayspot:

This wayspot is a reflector at the city zoo, with a cute pangolin design on top.

Last December, when I visited this area, I couldn’t find the entrance to this wayspot.
Later, I discovered it’s located on the zoo’s official “Operating road”.

You can clearly see It’s marked with a red sign saying “Operating Road, No Visitors Allowed.”
(作業道路,遊客止步)


To verify this, I still visited the location and took the above updated photos.

And, At the entrance to the Operating road, there’s a sign clearly labeled “Staff Only.” (遊客止步)

According to investigation, the “Operating road” is used by the zoo for walking animals and transporting large animals. It’s a dangerous route, and visitors are not welcome to enter, and it may even violate zoo regulations.

You’ll also notice that within the zoo, where many visitors take photos and upload them, there are no street views or photos of this route (on the west side).

Based on the above, it’s recommended that this wayspot, located in a location with safety concerns, be removed.

Is that even the same place? The plants in the back are different, the color of the pangolins are different, the signs beside the mirror are different and the reflections are different.

Thank you for your careful attention.

The original photo was taken 10 years ago, so the terrain here has certainly changed.
Also, you’ll notice a pole on the right, which is definitely the pole on the right in my updated photo.

And, here’s another photo of the distant view.

Notice that the yellow line on the ground clearly matches the aerial photo.

(I guess the pangolin may have been replaced to a new one, after all, it has been ten years)

Maybe that’s the staff’s pokestop. Not all pokestops need to be accessible by the public. Like a pool in a gated community.

To me , it looks like parking area and it have marking for pedestrian. And wayspot doesnt need to be accesible to everyone. If its staff only area, you shouldnt trespass . Mentioning only accesible to staff doesnt convincing enough and transporting animal doesnt means its ineligible because its on the side of the road. If this is incorrect, you might wanna rethink about this removal request but please keep all fact straight.

Im confused where the chain with the staff only comes into play in all this.

At the top

Staff only is not reason for rejection. It have negative impact on your request

Let me state first that I fully understand that restricting access to a community or facility is comply with the standards. I’ve applied for tons of similar Wayspots in community.

Someone misunderstood this article,
The title and content are focused on “safety issues.”
Trails used for “transporting large animals”, “Providing official access for vehicles and equipment.” and “walking wild animals” are prohibited to outsiders because of safety concerns.

The risk factor is the cause, and prohibiting visitors (And, by the way, “Staff Only”) is the effect.
Please don’t confuse cause and effect.

I’d like to add a few more points:

  1. This Wayspot is located in a large recreational park, so it’s natural for visitors to mistake it for an internal park object, leading to danger.
  2. This Wayspot was applied for ten years ago, when the aforementioned regulations didn’t exist. If the reviewer had known it was on a dedicated, official operating route, this wayspot application would have been rejected based on the regulations at the time.
  3. This area is for zoo vehicle operations, and the parking spaces are for staff use. I can’t say there’s 100% risk here, but to say it’s absolutely risk-free is clearly wrong.

It’s a safety issue for whom? The staff that are trained and are supposed to be there? or for the outsiders who enter places they’re not supposed to?