Invalid Wayspot Appeal: 해바라기 놀이터

[whalesister]

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

• Wayspot Title: 해바라기 놀이터

• Location (lat/lon): 37.392178, 126.983129

• City: Uiwang-si

• Country: South Korea

• Screenshot of the Rejection Email (do not include your personal information):

  

• Additional Information (if any): Hi Niantic Team,

  ​I’m writing to appeal the rejection of my removal request for “해바라기 놀이터”.

  ​I’d like to clarify that this playground is not a general public facility. It is actually an outdoor activity space physically attached to ‘에코빌 아름어린이집’ (a local daycare center).

  ​As shown in the attached photos, the playground and its small vegetable garden are right next to the daycare building and connected directly to its path. This whole area is actively used for toddlers’ and young children’s daily educational activities by the daycare.

  ​Since it functions as part of a childcare/daycare facility, having a Wayspot here raises safety concerns for the children. Based on Niantic’s guidelines regarding K-12 and daycare properties, I kindly ask you to review the evidence and remove this Wayspot.

  ​Thank you for your time and assistance.

Photo 1: Front view of ‘에코빌 아름어린이집’ (Daycare Center) showing its official signboard.

Photo 2: Ground-level view of the playground showing the daycare building directly behind it.

Photo 3: Overview showing the direct connection between the playground, the daycare building, and its vegetable garden.

[salixsorbus]

Are you able to show a view of the playground in relation to this building (with the number 103 over the door, behind and slightly to the right of the playground ) which appears to be apartments? From streetview, this playground could easily be attached to this building and if it has direct access from it, which seems highly likely, it is not a playground belonging to the daycare building but one near to it.

However, if there is no access from the building, this would appear to belong to the daycare.

I notice this is a gym.

[whalesister]

​@salixsorbus

To clarify, the entrance of the residential building (Building 102/103) faces the opposite side towards the main road, not toward the playground.

​Under Korean housing regulations, daycare centers are legally mandated inside residential complexes. Therefore, while it is within the apartment grounds, this playground was specifically designed and placed directly adjacent to the daycare—away from general resident foot traffic—to ensure functional independence and safety for the toddlers using it daily.

​General residents do not use this path for entry, making it an outdoor educational space primarily serving the daycare center.

[salixsorbus]

That is not the entrance I am talking about, which is clearly visible on streetview. Go to the streetview link I provided and zoom all the way in.

[elijustrying]

Hello @whalesister

Can you be clear please, is this play ground part of the day care property? Are they responsible for it or is a facility for the complex as a whole.

Can someone with a child go and play there when the day care is not open?

I notice several other play areas in the neighbouring complexes does they same apply to them?

[whalesister]

​@elijustrying @salixsorbus Thank you for the detailed discussion. I would like to clarify how Korean housing laws and residential planning function regarding this setup.

1. ​Access and Legal Constraints: Under Korean Housing Law, daycare centers and their associated playgrounds are legally mandated inside residential complexes. Because of these zoning regulations, it is legally impossible to build physical walls or completely block off pathways between residential buildings (like Building 103) and the daycare zone. Resident access is technically possible from any building in the complex simply because open physical boundary separation is prohibited by design standards.
2. ​Intentional Functional Separation: To balance this legal constraint with child safety, planners consciously place the daycare playground at a peripheral/edge location—away from central community plaza routes—to separate its function as much as possible from general residential foot traffic.
3. ​Comparison with Other Complexes: In larger developments with ample space, complexes build separate general-purpose playgrounds alongside the mandated daycare playground. However, in smaller complexes, the designated playground adjacent to the daycare inherently serves as the primary outdoor learning facility for the daycare.
4. ​Amplified Risk during Daycare Hours: Yes, because it remains open, any adult can physically walk up to this playground even during operating hours (which contradicts the safety intent of daycare planning). This is precisely why having a Wayspot here is dangerous. It incentivizes strangers/players to gather or linger in an active toddler learning space during care hours, greatly amplifying safety and privacy risks for young children.

​For these safety reasons, I urge the Niantic Staff to review this under the K-12/daycare safety guidelines.

[cyndiepooh]

You still have not established that this play area is on the grounds of a day care. Do you have a link to prove that the day care owns the play area? That is not clear from what you have presented.

From everything you have said, this is primarily for the use of the residential complex. The fact that a day care within the building uses the facility does not make it ineligible. This is similar to a public park being used by an adjacent elementary school.

[whalesister]

​@cyndiepooh @elijustrying @salixsorbus

​Thank you for the discussion. However, comparing this to a “public park next to a school” misses the fundamental cultural and legal context of Korean housing developments, as well as the core purpose of Niantic’s safety guidelines.

​1. Korean Housing Law & Residential Design

Under Korean Housing Law, daycare centers are legally mandated inside residential complexes, and regulations strictly require designated outdoor learning spaces (playgrounds/gardens) attached to them. Because of standard residential zoning laws, it is legally and physically impossible to build walled-off perimeter fences between residential buildings and daycare zones inside a complex. Resident access is technically possible simply because open physical boundaries are required by local design standards—not because this is a general municipal public park.

​2. Intentional Functional Independence

To address these legal constraints, architects intentionally design the layout so that daycare playgrounds maintain maximum functional independence within the open environment, keeping them separated from primary residential traffic flows. While adults can physically walk past this space outside or even during care hours, it was planned and is operated specifically as a functional outdoor educational space for the daycare’s toddlers.

​3. Property Ownership vs. Child Safety (The Core of K-12 Guidelines)

Evaluating this issue based on land ownership or general foot traffic misses the intent of Niantic’s safety policies. For example, many public schools in Korea do not have perimeter gates and open their facilities to local residents. Yet, Wayspots on school grounds are strictly forbidden regardless of land ownership or public access. Why? Because the rule exists to prevent forcing random adult players to loiter near children during care and learning hours.

​4. Amplified Risk for Toddlers

Having a Gym at this location directly contradicts the safety intent of daycare planning. During operating hours, adult players gathering for Legendary Raids or Gym battles end up occupying the exact space where toddlers conduct daily outdoor activities.

​Because this is a licensed childcare facility area where adult player gathering directly compromises toddler safety and privacy, I kindly request Niantic Staff to review this appeal under the K-12/daycare safety guidelines.

[cyndiepooh]

Where are your links backing up your statement that this belongs to a day care facility and is not a common amenity for the building? That is the kind of evidence that staff will need.

We see a lot of requests on the forum trying to remove gyms specifically. Please note that false reports can be considered abuse as well.

Also note that none of us who have responded so far are staff. They will be clearly identified by their user names. We are just explaining what evidence would be needed to grant this request.

[whalesister]

​@cyndiepooh

​To provide concrete statutory proof regarding the legal mandate of this facility, here are the relevant provisions from the Statutes of the Republic of Korea (KLRI):

​1. Mandatory Outdoor Playground Requirement for Daycares

Under [Annex 1] of the Enforcement Rule of the Infant Care Act (영유아보육법 시행규칙), licensed daycare centers with a capacity of 50 or more children are legally required to secure an outdoor playground space (minimum 3.5 m² per toddler). When establishing a separate playground within the daycare premises is impractical, Korean law explicitly authorizes linking a designated playground within a 100-meter walking distance as the officially recognized “adjacent outdoor playground” required for licensing.

​2. Building Permit and Housing Construction Standards

Under Article 35 of the Housing Act (주택법) and Article 55-2 of the Regulations on Housing Construction Standards, etc. (주택건설기준 등에 관한 규정), residential developments exceeding 300 households are legally mandated to install both daycare centers and playgrounds. Failure to fulfill the daycare’s mandatory outdoor facility standards prevents the daycare from obtaining an operating license and halts final building completion permits.

​3. Conclusion

This playground is not merely an optional general amenity—it is the officially designated and legally mandated outdoor learning space essential for the daycare’s operational license.

​Gathering adult players in a space officially tied to a daycare facility’s licensing directly compromises toddler safety during operating hours. I kindly request Niantic Staff to review this under K-12/daycare safety guidelines.

​(Official English texts of these acts can be verified on the Korea Legislation Research Institute portal: https://elaw.klri.re.kr)

[cyndiepooh]

If you consider this to be evidence that this playground needs to be removed, should all the playgrounds at all the buildings be removed as well? It seems like this would apply to to all buildings from your description.

[elijustrying]

Please be assured that your appeal will be read independently by the wayfarer team who will make their judgement.

However what we are trying to do is point out that you could make a stronger case and giving you the chance to do so.

From all you have said so far what I conclude is that both a play area and day care are required to be present. And the reasoning, which is great, is that children should be able to play outside.

In other words the law requires ease of access to the play area but not ownership of it.

You have yet to demonstrate that THIS play area has been shown to belong to the day care.

I think a simple example would be can children play there when the day care is closed.

[whalesister]

@cyndiepooh Wayfarer appeals are evaluated strictly on a case-by-case basis, not through sweeping generalizations.

In this specific, smaller complex, this is the sole playground, which was planned and legally linked to serve as the daycare’s primary outdoor facility. Unlike larger developments with multiple general-purpose play areas, this single space directly functions as an active toddler educational zone during daycare hours.

That is why having a Wayspot here creates a direct spatial and educational disruption for young children. It is not a blanket request to remove every playground in existence, but an effort to address the acute safety conflict of this specific single-playground setup.

I believe our discussion here provides constructive context that will help Niantic Staff make a well-informed decision for this appeal. Thanks for the meaningful discussion.

[ScopelyExpAaron]

Thanks for the appeal, @whalesister ,

@whalesister

• It is actually an outdoor activity space physically attached to ‘에코빌 아름어린이집’ (a local daycare center)

We could not verify this information and, as a result, decided to not retire the Wayspot in question.

Best,

[whalesister]

Thank you for the constructive feedback. Engaging in this discussion with you has really helped clarify the core argument.

You make a fair point regarding ownership. Under Korean Housing Law, all shared amenities—including both the daycare facility and the playground—are technically common property owned jointly by the residential complex.

However, as mandated by the Infant Care Act, securing a designated outdoor playground is a legal prerequisite for the daycare to operate and maintain its license. So while the legal ownership is shared by the complex, the functional purpose of this specific space is legally bound to the daycare’s educational operations.

This brings us back to the core intent of Niantic’s safety policy: Regardless of property ownership, do we want a system that incentivizes random adults to gather or linger at a playground during active childcare hours?

Just as public school grounds are community-owned assets open to the public after hours yet strictly off-limits for Wayspots, the primary focus here should be protecting toddlers during their daily care hours. I appreciate your insights, and I believe this discussion will provide valuable context for Niantic Staff when reviewing this appeal.