Hasefriedhof Osnabrück

Wayspot Appeals
1

I understand that this issue was already raised more than a year ago, but I believe it is still relevant to the local Pokémon GO community.

Location in question

Hasefriedhof, Osnabrück, Germany
Coordinates: 52.2895556, 8.0423333

The Hasefriedhof previously had five Gyms, which were removed while the location itself remained in the Wayspot database. Since then, several new PokéStops have been added to the area, showing that the location continues to be considered suitable for Wayspots.

My main concern is that the Hasefriedhof is not an active cemetery. It was officially decommissioned as a burial site on December 31, 2015. Today, the City of Osnabrück maintains it as a historic, park-like public green space and explicitly promotes it as a place for recreation and learning about local history.

Official City of Osnabrück source:

The former Gyms were also not exclusively located on ordinary graves. Some represented chapels, historic structures, or other significant features of the site. The Hasefriedhof itself contains numerous historically significant graves and structures connected to Osnabrück’s history.

Official source:

I also find the situation difficult to reconcile with the continued existence of PokéStops and Gyms at other cemeteries in the region, including active cemeteries. For example, Friedhof Alt-Georgsmarienhütte continues to have Wayspots despite still being used for burials.

I understand that every Wayspot must be assessed individually and that criteria can change. However, this raises the question of whether the former Hasefriedhof Wayspots were removed solely because the location was classified as a cemetery, despite the cemetery having been decommissioned for more than ten years.

I am not asking for an exception to the Wayspot criteria. I am asking for the five former Gyms to be individually reassessed based on the current status of the location: a publicly accessible, city-maintained historic park that is no longer an active cemetery and continues to receive new Wayspots.

Thank you for taking the time to review this appeal.

2

Hello and Welcome,

That is a lot to read.

If you keep your queries concise and 1 at a time I think you will get a better response.

Good Luck.

4

I haven’t read your entire post as it was too long, but Scopely Explore do have a general problem with abusive removals. They have not found a solution for it, because the wayfarer team are not generally allowed to restore a wayspot as a gym.

When a gym is abusively reported for removal and evidence is provided to persuade Scopely Explore to remove the wayspot, Pokemon Go picks a new gym, which is why the abusive report is made.

When that wayspot is returned after an appeal, Pokemon Go has already picked a new gym, so it returns as a pokestop.

There have been a few instances where I think the wayfarer team have managed to change the gym back to the returned wayspot, but it isn’t general policy, which means often the abusive players have won - they wanted the gym to move and they got the gym moved.

This is worth highlighting, but you need a much shorter post than this one.

5

Hey @Handodo7342 ,

Welcome to the Wayfarer Community Forum.

We have looked at this location again and stand by our decision to remove the Wayspots from this cemetery.

I have removed these Wayspots. You should see the changes reflected soon.

If you believe there are Wayspots that do not meet our criteria, we encourage you to report them, and our team will review the reports.

Thanks,

6

If the city or whatever office has asked to restrict the Wayspots there, you can send them this form to reverse those, if they agree to do it

7

Thanks for shortening the opening post - it’s much easier to read now and I have done so :slight_smile:

I see that Scopely Explore have answered regarding the removal of wayspots at this cemetery, so I will not address this specific issue any more.

As a general rule, if ineligible wayspots exist, you cannot reasonably point at them and say “why have mine been removed when those haven’t”. The right thing to do is to report them.

8

Thank you for reviewing the location again.

I understand that you are standing by the decision regarding the former Wayspots. However, I would like to ask you to reconsider the removal of the newer Wayspots that have since been added to the Hasefriedhof.

These Wayspots do not represent graves or individual burial sites. They represent other features of the publicly accessible historic park and are located away from graves.

I understand that the location itself is a former cemetery, but I would appreciate it if these Wayspots could be reviewed individually rather than being removed solely because they are located within the grounds of the former Hasefriedhof.

If these individual Wayspots meet the current criteria and do not represent graves or inappropriate cemetery features, I would greatly appreciate them being allowed to remain.

Thank you for considering this.