Not an appeal, just an example of a strange rejection for a removal at ( 35.130195,136.828683 )
I have to say, that I have absolutely no clue what the removal criteria are, but I noticed this wayspot a week ago, and to me, it was very clear this should never have become a wayspot, as it is very clear this is just the most basic infrastructure. But I guess I was wrong..
This translates to “The entrance to Mikazuki Park” for me. I have also use bollards as a visual to represent a point of interest like this when there is not a sign. The point of interest is the entrance to the park, not the bollards. This seems like a good Wayspot at a place that would be fun to explore (and exercise and be social) to me.
I tend to agree.
This older wayspot is for Crescent Moon Park
It is a small park and it had a wayspot naming the park as a whole when this entrance to Crescent Moon Park was submitted. So if I had it in review I wouldn’t have said it was significantly different as the entrance is often where you do name the park as a whole.
What I do raise an eyebrow at is the number of photos where the focus is on the bollards that have been added. 15 since the beginning of August. That’s a lot of love for those bollards. 
We had a gym removal request at this forum in the neighborhood, that’s why I looked into the area, I would not have been surprised if there was an attempt to force a gym in this park.
I know that Aaron has specifically said
But people continue to stuff photos. Just going to leave the conversation there.
He said that, but if you read that whole post again, you can also see that they fixed the issue with an inactive wayspot (now live at 56.086128,12.400710), They never agreed that there was an issue.
