Live in Wayfarer 3.1 is a new set of acceptance criteria! Please browse the information in this category with caution as it is in reference to the previous review guidelines. To learn more about the new criteria, see here: https://niantic.helpshift.com/a/wayfarer/
Would this be eligible?
aaronvianno-ING Posts: 90 ✭✭✭
A bit of background: This is a kind of community/activity centre for senior citizens.
It is maintain in collaboration with a local charity & the city municipal.
It is a free library for senior citizens to read books + newspapers.
It also allows them to play games like chess or carom.
It's completely free to use.
If it's submitted based on the library aspect, it could stand a chance at being accepted.
The fact that it's for senior citizens/elder people could leave some reviewers feeling uncomfortable about accepting it though.
Senior citizens are at equal liberty to play all Niantic games, and the criteria doesn't mention any prohibition on recreation centres for the elderly.
I never said they weren't.
However, speaking as someone that works with the elderly in a facility designated for the private care of the elderly, it is a safeguarding concern if strangers are on the premises without just reason. Which is why I said some reviewers would feel uncomfortable approving it.
Again, no one would actually need to enter the premises to interact with the portal. I don't believe that subjectivity should be allowed. It's not a part of the POI criteria and everyone knows not to trespass.
I'm certain Niantic have stated in the past that we must be able to actually go up to the nomination and be able to touch it, or in the event if it being a mural high up on a wall, be able to touch the wall.
Niantic haven't given any clear guidance on facilities for senior citizens, which is why I have repeatedly stated that some reviewers may feel uncomfortable voting favourably on such a nomination.
I'm not saying don't submit it, I'm just saying don't be too surprised if it gets rejected for not meeting criteria or whatever reason reviewers in your country decide to pick.
It depends, if it's an elderly center that's private, by that I mean its run by like a care home and used by those residents, then reject. If it's a community center that's open for public use by the elderly in the area, thats a meeting place, there would be no reason to reject and would be acceptable from that side
I don't agree with people being comfortable with it or not, an objective assessment of the potential POI is what is needed.
Being privately managed again wouldn't bar it from be eligible. To be clear this isn't run by an elderly home. Certainly wouldn't nominate something like that unless it were truly historical. This is a community welfare association (technically private run like most things are in the world) that manages several other community welfare projects. Any senior citizen is free to use the facilities. There isn't even any membership.
@aaronvianno-ING when I said private, i meant run by a care home and used specifically by them, should have specified that. If its fir public use then I dint see any issue
I understand the concern about things like elderly care homes. I think all people are trying to say is-- dont be surprised if it ends up being hard to get approved because it's for the elderly.
I PERSONALLY think it sounds like a good submission and would give it passing marks based on the information you provided. It's a free to use, public gathering space that offers games/books. But I'd say most reviewers don't know all the ins and outs of reviewing. It often seems like anything that is a grey area is hard to get approved. I think you SHOULD submit it- it's just a word of caution to brace yourself, and know that you might need to try more than once.
I'm not new to this. Just making sure I had all my bases covered. I'm used to getting tons of rejections, this is only a part of taking action against baseless rejections. :)
FYI rejected 4-5 times already :P with some hilarious reasons.
Personally speaking then, I would reject anything on the grounds of a facility designated or appears to be designated specifically for the care of the elderly or other vulnerable people because it's a massive safeguarding concern having people that have no association with the premises wandering around without prior permission of management.
I work at a care home with a reasonable amount of outdoors space. We are forever having to tell dog walkers or kids to get off the grounds because they shouldn't be there, and if there was a wayspot on the grounds, it would encourage more people with no need to be there to start coming onto the grounds.
Which is precisely why *some* reviewers would feel uncomfortable voting favourably on the facility you posted above, and why I originally said it would stand a better chance if it's submitted as a library rather than a library and facility for the elderly.
Until Niantic give a proper clarification on whether facilities for the elderly, including care homes, day care centres, or ones like what you posted, are eligible or not, the community will be split on how to vote on it.
That doesn't sound like a legitimate reason to not review it favourably if it met criteria.
It sounds like your issue is trespassing. Trespassing is a big NO in any situation. But trespassing isn't an issue specific to the kind of facilities you've described. Any kind of property can be trespassed on, and that kind of behaviour would be wrong by anyone doing so.
For example a Fire Temple can be visited only by people of the Zorastrian faith. The fact that anyone else cannot legitimately enter the premises doesn't bar it from being perfectly valid as a place of religious significance. It just means everyone else has to behave themselves.
I know little of the Zorastrian faith, so I can't pass comment on that.
My point is that a facility for elderly people will have people that are more likely to be vulnerable than others, so security, safeguarding, and well being of the service users/residents/whatever else is a massive factor to take into account, which is why some reviewers might not vote favourably on something like what you originally posted.
I personally would say that facilities designated specifically for the elderly or other vulnerable groups shouldn't be allowed in the same way that schools, nurseries, day care centres, and other K12 premises aren't allowed.
Until Niantic give a yes/no answer on the matter, reviewers are going to vote on such places how they feel they should vote. Either way, I feel like we're going to go round in the circles on this matter, so perhaps it would be best to agree to disagree?
They're fine with healing gardens and other items within hospitals. Do you really think they're going to change their stance on places oriented to the elderly?
You get all sorts of people at hospitals, and from what I've observed from my various trips to hospitals, there's usually a security team.
In care homes and such, no security guards, so again, strangers walking on the premises of places that are designated for the elderly or other vulnerable groups is a major safeguarding concern.
If that's a change you want, you should suggest it to Niantic via the official clarifications form. So until they say No, it's not something to consider.
It absolutely is something to consider though. It's fine saying players should know not to trespass or whatever else, but there's that fringe minority that don't care about trespassing being illegal or whatever else and it's that fringe minority that cause the issues for the rest of us. Which is precisely why I have been saying that some reviewers don't feel comfortable voting favourably on a facility designated for the elderly.
Have to agree many reviewers feel uncomfortable approving anything where vulnerable people may gather/meet, or in the case of care homes even live, and I would class the elderly as vulnerable.
We don't have clear guidance on this, so it's up to each reviewer how they personally feel. It's not unreasonable to feel that protecting the vulnerable is more important than more Wayspots.