When submitting a Wayspot Appeal, make sure to include as much of the following information as possible:
-
Wayspot Title: The Tortoise and the Hare
-
Location (lat/lon): 47.683026,-122.329797
-
City: Seattle
-
Country: USA
-
Screenshot of the Rejection Email (do not include your personal information): n/a
-
Additional Information (if any): Asking on behalf of a community member - this POI was a pair of outdoor statues located in front of a two-unit apartment building. It appears to have been removed from Pokemon Go and from the Wayfarer map within the past 1–2 months.
Was this a property owner request for removal? See below for screenshots.
Street View from September 2025, showing the street-facing front of the building, shows the tops of the statues visible just above the hedge. Street View from October 2024, taken from behind the building, confirms multiple parking spaces and two separate entrances, one for each apartment. The map inset in both screenshots indicates there are units #1 and #2 at this address.
I was able to take photos on site a few days ago confirming that the statues are still present at this location. I’d need to switch from desktop to mobile to provide those photos, but I wanted to first determine whether this was a property-owner removal, in which case I understand it likely cannot be overturned.
Thanks in advance for checking on this:
Although I cant work out the relationship between the two photos, as they are different buildings, the first one is clearly two single-family private residences alongside each other.
Functionally (and architecturally), this is a semi-detached residence, with one residence on the left and one on the right.
There is no door providing access to multiple residences; there is no access to a separate residence above.
Certainly in the UK, semi-detached residences are considered SFPRP and strictly ineligible. This simply looks different than a brick house, but I don’t see any practical difference.
Thanks for responding! My bad, I guess it isn’t clear these are the same building - front and back. Looks like the order the images uploaded has the backside first and then the frontside (facing onto Green Lake Drive N). I’m not sure but I think this is two stacked flats, a bottom floor residence and a top floor one. Anyway it appears to me that each residence has its own door on the back side of the building where the parking spaces are.
It may very well be that Scopely will consider this to be ineligible. I’m happy to be patient and wait for them to weigh in when they have a chance to say why it’s been removed from the map.
I’m super curious how lawn ornaments, that are tucked behind a bush, were ever eligible in the first place.
LOL ask whoever submitted them in Ingress, it’s from before my time 
Gotcha! So you TRULY are acting as the messenger here. Makes sense!
Thanks for the appeal, @tangelalandsbry! We have taken another look but stand by our decision to retire this Wayspot.
Hi LC, thanks for getting back to me! Understood - but can you answer my question about what removal criteria it met? Was this type of dwelling considered single-family (like a duplex maybe?), was it a property owner removal, or something else? Thank you 
It doesn’t sound like a property owner request, because normally Scopely Explore will say - when asked - that a removal was due to this. The response you gave is a standard one when Scopely Explore have received a removal report from a wayfarer, assessed this, and decided to remove the wayspot.
They won’t normally say how this met removal criteria.
That’s what I suspect, yeah, but was hoping for more direct confirmation. I’ve been told the building is actually 3 units, and I don’t know whether it’s considered a triplex or duplex type of structure versus apartments, etc.
Very well could be that they are not permanent.
