Wayspot Removal Appeal - Similar Playground Equipment in a Park

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

  • Wayspot Title / Location *(lat/lon):
  1. 兒童遊樂設施 22.974994,120.232303
  2. 搖擺椅 22.975264,120.232066
  3. 雙人太空漫步機 22.974809,120.232147
  4. 文良涼亭 22.975151,120.232056

After reviewing a decision precedent (https://community.wayfarer.nianticlabs.com/t/wrongly-removed-portal/27790), I decided to appeal for the removal of some equipment with similar functions and facilities that are not distinct enough to represent the park as separate Wayspots.

The small 40-by-50-meter park is already well-represented by a landmark stone (文良公園 22.974984,120.232427). The park contains two wooden canopies (文良涼亭 22.975151,120.232056) and a playground (兒童遊樂設施 22.974994,120.232303) with more than six pieces of exercise equipment (e.g. 搖擺椅 22.975264,120.232066 雙人太空漫步機 22.974809,120.232147) around the park. Since the park is very small and the equipment is not significantly separated, I suggest considering these spots as a whole park and marking some of the Wayspots as duplicates.

All features you have pointed out are all dostinct and eligible on their own merits.

Likewise, individual paintings are eligible and distinct, but multiple paintings in a museum are another story. I am talking about “duplicates.” This is just my suggestion. Any decision the team makes will become a valuable precedent for my future references.

Thanks for the appeal, @shellgroup. After reviewing the additional evidence provided, we’ve decided to retire 2 Wayspots in question.

1 Like

Please be aware that individual appeal decisions do not set a precedent to be referenced in another situation. They should not be viewed as a general pronouncement or clarification.

The decision in this instance applies to this situation.

3 Likes

This seems like a bad decision and which 2 were removed.
Those pieces seemed seperated and distrinct with borders

One wayspot for a playground is something that has been discussed many times. Why should this be an exception?

The atuff in this picture didnt look like multiple of a playgrou d