I think there are several assumptions in your comment that need to be separated from the actual facts.
First, yes — the basketball field physically exists. That has never been in dispute.
What I disagree with is the statement that it is simply “no longer suitable to play basketball”. That conclusion appears to be based primarily on how the surrounding vegetation looks in the photographs. Vegetation growing around an existing structure does not, by itself, prove that the physical field has ceased to exist or can no longer be used.
Regarding the photographs, I have already provided the original, completely unedited photograph. I have never claimed that the edited photograph was the original. The edited version was used to make the existing physical object easier to see. AI was not used to create the basketball field, add a basketball court, move the object, or fabricate something that does not exist. The physical field was already there.
There is also an important misconception in your comment that I need to correct.
You seem to be treating my previous post and the photographs I added there as if I were the person who originally nominated this Wayspot. I was not. That was not my nomination, it was not submitted from my account, and I was not the person who originally submitted those photographs.
My involvement came later, when I noticed that a Wayspot that had previously been accepted and was physically present in Pokémon GO had disappeared. I was asking why it had disappeared and providing information about the location. Therefore, it is not accurate to portray this as me repeatedly trying to “force” Wayspots into the game or deliberately manipulating nominations to get them accepted.
I cannot take responsibility for the original nomination or for photographs submitted by another person under another account.
I subsequently provided additional information and photographs because I was trying to establish why a real, physically existing location that had previously been accepted and active in the game had disappeared.
There is another important point regarding the condition of the location. This is a natural, protected area. We cannot simply cut vegetation, remove trees, clear the surrounding terrain or otherwise modify the environment just to make a Wayspot photograph look more convenient for reviewers. The fact that nature has grown around an existing structure is not something we are legally free to “fix” for the purposes of a game nomination.
This is also not private property. The location is publicly accessible, and the basketball field has physically existed there and has historically been used by local children.
You also say that if the Wayspot was nominated as an active basketball field, then it should be removed. But that assumes that the only relevant question is whether it currently looks like a maintained sports facility. That is not the same question as whether the physical object exists.
I understand and accept the rules regarding photographs, including the fact that AI-generated or manipulated imagery should not be used to misrepresent a location. That is exactly why I have now provided the original photograph. I am not asking anyone to accept an artificial image as evidence of a real location.
What I am asking is that the actual physical existence of the location be considered separately from the appearance of the surrounding vegetation.
I also mentioned other playground Wayspots in the local area for a specific reason. I am not saying that potentially fake or inaccurate Wayspots should remain simply because this one exists. Quite the opposite — if those locations genuinely do not correspond to any physical playground, they should also be investigated and removed.
My point is about consistency. If a Wayspot is supposed to be evaluated based on whether the claimed physical object exists at the submitted location, then a real object should not be treated as nonexistent simply because its surroundings make it more difficult to verify from a photograph.
In the other direction, locations where the claimed object cannot actually be found should be evaluated on evidence that it does not exist.
So there is a significant difference between:
“The physical basketball field no longer exists or is inaccessible”
and
“The physical basketball field exists, but the surrounding natural vegetation makes it harder to see clearly in a photograph.”
Those are not the same situation.
I have now supplied the original photograph so there is no longer any ambiguity about what is physically present there. If staff ultimately decide that the Wayspot does not meet the current criteria for some other reason, that is their decision and I will accept it.
But I don’t think it is reasonable to conclude that I fabricated or artificially created the location simply because I later provided an edited image for visibility — especially when I was not even the person who originally nominated the Wayspot.
The physical location exists. The basketball field exists. The original photograph shows it. The surrounding vegetation is part of a protected natural environment, and that is not something we can simply modify to make the location look better for a game review.
I am not asking anyone to take my word for it. I am asking for the evidence and the actual physical location to be considered rather than assumptions based solely on how the surroundings appear in one photograph.
