nominations on or around the grounds of outpatient clinics
Is there any official criteria or clarification regarding outpatient medical clinics (any medical specialty, dentistry, etc) that aren't physically connected to hospitals or located on hospital property? I know there's been some hot debate on the point of hospitals and "obstructing emergency services", and I'd like to treat this as a separate discussion from medical facilities that have legitimate emergency capabilities and regular traffic from personnel or vehicles that respond only in emergency situations.
Obviously, the waypoint needs to fit eligibility criteria, and just nominating a clinic as its own waypoint may not do that. But if a nomination would otherwise meet eligbility criteria (like unique art in a waiting room, or a fountain outside a dentist office, or unique architecture adjacent to a family medicine clinic, etc), it seems like it shouldn't be rejected on the grounds of obstructing emergency services or being a sensitive location because emergency vehicles and emergency services almost as a rule don't operate from outpatient settings. Generally, a clinic operates at a pace where the inclusion of a waypoint in the vicinity doesn't compromise work flow or patient care to a dangerous degree, if at all. You could make the case that an ambulance could respond if an emergency situation develops in an outpatient clinic, but that's not the purpose of a clinic to respond to situations like this, and those instances are generally very rare.
If there's any official clarification on this, link it please.
Comments
Sensitive location - not appropriate for a POI.
I'd agree that eligible PoI in the vicinity of a doctor's or dentist's office should be fine, as long as they don't disrupt emergency services (which they are unlikely to do in such locations). There is nothing particularly "sensitive" about such locations.
I've had a small zen garden attached to a large outpatient medical building approved, for example, and it interferes with nothing.
So long as someone standing at the location wouldn't disrupt the operations of the clinic, it should be rejected on for that particular reason. Nor is it a "sensitive location" and shouldn't be rejected as such.
lol please explain further.
I would disagree. The text associated with "sensitive location" say "Use for nominations whose real-world location appears to be sensitive.". I would not consider any Clinics, medical offices or dentists an appropriate place for a POI as hanging around areas where patients go for treatment to be appropriate.
Failing that, perhaps I should just fall back on the "Does not meet criteria" - a dentist surgury could harldly be described as a place for excercise, to be social or to explore.
Obviously, the waypoint needs to fit eligibility criteria, and just nominating a clinic as its own waypoint may not do that.
Right there in the first post. Nobody but you is suggesting nominating a genetic dentist location. And by calling a dental office "sensitive" you're really stretching to find a reason to reject.
So long as its not the doctors/dentist itself being submitted, but say, a statue, or exercise related thing (my go has what is called an exercise wall attached to the side of it leading away Ron it, has exercises to do against/along the wall like short burst sprinting, stretches etc.) Or anything g eligible, then its fine by me
Ineligible location, place, or object
Sensitive locations like gravestones (not associated with a significant/historical figure) and cemeteries
I review nominations about clinics the same way about hospitals. For example, a fountain outside a dental office would be eligible if it is away from the entrance, and unique art in a waiting room would be ineligible (depending on the location).
Since we're on the topic, what're your thoughts on this one. It is not a hospital so doesn't impede emergency services.
I'm two nominations away from a new gym in the grid and this ought to work.
Not a hospital - fair enough. What criteria does this place meet then?
People gather. Promotes health and wellness.
This is exactly what I see all the time and its ineligible... It's a sign, for a doctor's office. It doesn't fit into any of the criteria.
If they have a fountain, or statue, or gazebo nearby... Sure. A sign for a doctor's office is 1* and I mark it as "Obstructs emergency services" Because a random clinic/hospital/doctor's office is not eligible and that's one way to tell you/the submitter its a no-go don't resubmit that.
Neither of those are in the acceptance criteria. The acceptance criteria are a great place to be social, a great place to exercise, or a great place to explore. People gather at a clinic to get treatment, not to be social. And clinics promote health, but they do not do so by being a great place to exercise.
It doesn't meet any criteria
Counterpoint
What about [children's] hospitals for example? I'd want there to be a gym or pokestop to be nearby. Since I couldn't leave. [Hypothetically]
Same somewhat logic.
Clinics, hospitals, etc Promote health which is prerequisite of exercising [health activity]
The hospital itself is still not eligible/obstructs emergency services. Oxygen is also a prerequisite of exercising since you need to breath to function but every tree isn't eligible because it creates oxygen (although that doesn't stop every child from nominating "The oldest tree in the land")
A mural, fountain, pavilion, gazebo, statue, etc on/in the hospital may be eligible though, so long as it does not interfere with operations or ER areas etc.
"Wanting" there to be a wayspot somewhere is irrelevant. Tons of people "want" there to be a wayspot in their front yard; that doesn't mean they can have one. Niantic's wayspot database is about finding interesting places that meet the acceptance criteria (and don't meet the rejection criteria).
And again, "promotes health" is not the same as " is a good place to exercise" any more than a rectangle is a square.
What do you think of this submission? This isn't a hospital therefore doesn't impede emergency services
Seriously?
The the oxygen and tree comment wasn't necessary.
It simply doesn't meet any of the three eligibility criteria, so it was correctly rejected as "other rejection criteria". Some reviewers may have incorrectly chose the "obstructs emergancy services" reason, but that doesn't mean that the rejection as a whole is wrong.