When submitting a Wayspot Appeal, make sure to include as much of the following information as possible:
- Wayspot Title: Quatro Wip
- Location (lat/lon): 51.587048,5.340784
- Screenshot of the Rejection Email (do not include your personal information):
- Additional Information (if any):
This is a plaything within that playground (Speeltuin Bachstraat, 51.586926,5.340347) as shown in streetview:
Are you saying the plaything is a duplicate of the playground, or that there were two wayspots for the same plaything? It was not clear to me.
At the moment, I only see a single “Quatro wip” and a “Speeltuin Bachstraat”. And nothing at the lat,lng you posted.
So unsure if a spot was removed, or something else is being considered a duplicate.
The playground had a wayspot and then an item within the playground was submitted as a separate playspot. This is a duplicate.
These two appear to be at opposite ends of the green space, with little in between.
It might be possible to argue those are “clearly divided playgrounds” (even without a younger/older differentiation).
Now, if the climbing structure right next to “Quatro wip” was a spot, I could see that as easily being a duplicate.
I disagree. This is one play area, even if there isn’t a fence around it.
(I can’t get everything to show in one streetview image, but this shows the basic idea.)
That is the play structure I was referring to.
I honestly thought it was a different structure/slide than the one in the background of the other photo.
Bing Maps aerial is a bit better than G’s.
Thanks for the appeal, @iFrankmans! We gave this a second look and decided to retire the Wayspot in question.
