Additional Information (if any): This wayspot is just a generic Council sign stating regulations i.e. no vehicles, no off-leash animals, etc. These signs are located all over this vacant area and is not interesting or uniquely important to the local community. Furthermore, this sign is actually covered by trees and I have provided 3 screenshots below:
The first screenshot being the “entrance” to this vacant field:
The fact that the sign is currently obscured by foliage is not a reason to remove this wayspot and therefore the gym.
It’s a local green space. Places that can be used for recreation are not required to have any specific signage.
So it short you have evidenced it still exists.
Have you any other proof of an issue?
Hi @elijustrying
Thank you for your reply and looking into this for me.
My objection was more so that the location used is just a generic local Council sign. These sign posts are located all over this field.
Here are two examples of the same sign at a nearby Wayspot: :
Equestrian Park - Parkside Dr: Niantic Wayfarer
I have two follow up questions that I hope you help me with then:
If these generic Council signs are not required to create a Wayspot, can I create similar Wayspots in different locations around this large field that don’t have any signage?
Would any of these Wayspots be considered duplicates?
Hi,
It would be helpful to link to the clarification around parks.
There is also a difference between the criteria you meet to get something approved and put on the map and barriers to cross to get something removed from the map. In short there are more limited reasons to allow removal.
For new nominations
The key is you are nominating the park itself as the place and any sign or feature is acting as an anchor point. I personally dont think rules signs are great but if there is nothing else to anchor the park they are not unreasonable in my view to submit. It is then up to reviewers to decide if it’s acceptable.
A separate issue is about how many times can you nominate the park. This is a judgement call. There are no hard and fast rules. If the park already has nominations at entrances then it has been already nominated as a park.
Additional rules signs if they are spread across the park to act as reminders of the rules, would just be nominated for what they are rather than an anchor for the park. So in review I would not consider these to meet criteria and vote to reject.
Does this help explain the reasoning?
If your problem is that you don’t like the picture, then add a new one. It is much easier to change the picture on a waypoint than it is to get a new one approved. Particularly in this case when we are talking about a park without good signage. That first picture of the entrance would do well. Then add a thumbs up to your preferred photo until it becomes the main photo.
Thanks for the appeal, @87MadMatt! We took another look at the Wayspot in question and decided that it does not meet our criteria for removal at this time.
