Invalid K-12 Waypoint spotted while reviewing
sogNinjaman-ING
Posts: 3,313 ✭✭✭✭✭
Checking some of the "nearby" Waypoints on a submission tonight, I came across this existing Waypoint, the "Larkfield Holy Trinity Scout HQ", which is clearly a K-12 location. For a waypoint spotted like this, there is no other way to report it as invalid / for removal other than posting in here. @NianticGiffard
Tagged:
Comments
K-12 location means a school or something on the grounds of a school, not just a location or organization that serves children.
Scout huts have long fallen under K-12 and should be rejected for that.
If it’s a community hall that sometimes has Scout activities along with other community stuff, then it’s fine.
A Scout hut that’s main purpose is for scout meetings/activities is K-12.
K12, under Niantic's criteria, includes scout huts, nurseries, etc. Not just schools.
I understand that nurseries/kindergartens being included in the K12 rejection criteria, but why the heck scout huts too? It's not like they're private in most cases and also have plenty of older people in their organizations as well. Most scout huts I know of are located in public or semi-public areas, such as the basements of apartment buildings, public buildings, historic buildings, etc. I find this criteria a bit irrational as playgrounds are still eligible and they most definitely are only for small children.
Roughly speaking Its to do with membership and guardianship of the minor.
Playgrounds despite being open to everyone almost always have a rule either on the sign or for the local council that say use of the equipment is only allowed if accompanied by an adult i.e. the minors parents, legal guardian etc.
Scout huts and clubs that are on a k12 age scale are done on a membership basis, so no parent /legal guardian to act as protector, just the people employed (or who volunteer) for the club, so they are stewards to the children.
Niantics view is that places minors go when accompanied by their parents are allowed, but places where otheres act as stewards for the minors aren't.
Its a bit convoluted, but I would imagine theres a specific legal reason for them to try and seperate it that way.
From a simple basical point of view, I myself understood this rule this way :
Is it a good place to go to be social and play (a video game) with your kids ?
Playground, open parks or open sport installation for kids : Yes
School, nursery, clubs, etc : No
I see. I understand that there may be countries like the USA where a law might be an issue so that's understandable. But I feel this shouldn't be so black and white and thus also apply to countries where this isn't the case. In most places scout huts, save for maybe scout camp areas that may be a special case, are in publicly accessible areas (such as, right next to public sidewalks or so). With a carefully situated waypoint, there should be no issue at all. Also, as stated by Niantic, not everyone needs to be able to access a waypoint so even if it was the case the waypoint was inaccessible, it shouldn't necessarily matter that much.
You are trying to pick and choose bits from various different criteria to try to make your point. The "but we can access the roundabout / water tower / concrete statue in someones garden / plaque on the wall of a PRP" argument has repeatedly been used to justify a Waypoint being eligible, and repeatedly Niantic have said that this is not the case.
The Niantic Rejection criteria have long said that a K-12 location is not eligible to be a Waypoint, and have also repeatedly stated that Scout Huts are included as a K-12 location. If a potential Waypoint falls into this category it should be rejected, no matter how "easy / safe" it would be to hack or spin the resulting Waypoint would be. The Waypoint in question is clearly a K-12 location, so is invalid and should be removed according to Niantics "removal criteria".
Ineligible location, place, or object
I'm just saying, there isn't necessarily a reason to warrant this criteria to be so strict. As we are allowed to make adjustments based on our judgement and knowledge of our respective local/cultural situations on what should be considered eligible, it probably should also apply in situations such as this where a rejection criteria might not be warranted due to different cultural circumstances. If Niantic doesn't consider this a possibility yet, I feel they definitely should at least consider it.
We have reviewed the report and have taken action on the Wayspot in accordance with our policies.