Hi
Is it possible to know what defines a “sensitive location”?
All the wayspots in a hospital were removed with the simple argument “sensitive location”. They had existed for some time and didn’t seem to be a problem for anyone. How can we change an area to sensitive?
Is it possible to go back and make a request to change it back to normal?
The interest of the community is to have wayspots for everyone, even for hospitalized people. If anyone knows how to change what seems to be an error for me, I am interested with informations.
As I said on your original thread about this place, there is a Google Map pin that suggests that this hospital has a focus on dealing with certain sensitive subjects that likely shouldn’t be discussed on the forum. Given what I can see from this pin, I can completely understand why the wayspots may have been reported for being at a sensitive location.
Looks like a psychiatric hospital, which would fall under sensitive location. It’s a location that’s treating people for psychiatric issues, and they may be vulnerable, so having strangers wander around playing a game may not be welcome.
We have a psych hospital in the city I live in, and I know that it has a gym and fitness center, a chapel, and other POIs, but I would never consider nominating them as the focus of the hospital is to help those experiencing psychiatric issues and game play locations may be inappropriate, being that the focus is to try and help these people get better, and there are those our there that may want to take the patients our of the hospital before they are better or even bring them elicit items, like illegal drugs, which would interfer with recovery.
These types of hospitals also tend to have strict security for visitors, and staff may not even be able to have their personal phones on them while working, as it may distract some of the patients in getting healthier. Tech addition is something that these places do treat these days, and they may limit the tech available to both patients and staff.
This is a discriminatory response.
You give your opinion, which I can understand, but it doesn’t answer the original questions: how to reverse the classification of this area?
Do you know this hospital?
Do you know how people work there?
Do you know the relationship with the telephone among patients?
Overall, the staff is caring and the use of the telephone is not taken into account in their practice.
According to what you are saying, all the wayspots located on professional sites (we could add cultural sites, school sites, etc.) should not exist because their use goes against the specificity of the site with loss of attention etc…
I don’t want to get into a sensitive discussion.
I only asked a question, which you responded to with a judgment, not a real answer.
I just want to know how it’s possible to review the classification of an area.
If it becomes strictly forbidden to have a wayspot in a hospital, even a psychiatric one, it’s time to update the nomination rules and remove all wayspots in hospitals.
I know people that have been treated at these places. They are very restrictive on what both the patients and what the staff can have on them at all times. Phones are taken into account in many of these places these days, and personal devices typically cannot be on staff during work. They may have a work phone, but those typically can’t have games on them.
This is for the protection of the patients first and foremost, and being they are being treated for in a facility that is of a sensitive nature, and their conditions may also be sensitive (they may also be vunerable, too, as previously mentioned), Wayspots are not allowed in these types of hospitals.
@seaprincesshnb has worked in healthcare, and may have more to say about this.
A regular hospital, such as one that you go to see a doctor when you’re not feeling good, for a check-up, or for phyiscal therapy, is not usually a sensitive location. POIs in these can be Wayspots if they do not obstruct emergency services.
It’s the primary function of the hospital that is being considered here, as a pysch hospital treats people with venerable conditions that make them suspectable to relapse. I denote primary, as that’s of importance here: what is the primary function of the place.
Unfortunately, I think Niantic is really careful with psychiatric services. I don’t have a lot of advice on this one. You’d need someone in administration to explain how playing games is part of therapy for patients. But even then, Niantic is the ultimate decision maker about what locations they allow in their games.
As you mention, I hope Niantic takes care of its users and not just psychiatric services.
Are you implying that removing gaming tools (wayspot) is taking care of psychiatric patients… as if these patients were not people like any other, and would not have their freedom to play?
I understand and accept that Niantic decides. I’m just asking how it is possible to re-evaluate, based on scientific facts, that what is argued to make an area sensitive may be false.
Individual decisions will have been made about this location.
The wayfarer team were quite responsive in providing further clarification as to why the decision was not to restore these wayspots. They gave an answer to your restoration request and when you asked further they twice responded.
The decision is about this location it doesn’t create any precedent for other types of locations. So it does not impact on decisions about any other wayspots
It is clearly not what you want to hear, you have tried hard and made your case, but I think you have to let this go. If you persist it will just be a constant source of frustration as the team has made its decision.
It does sound like staff was in contact with someone there who asked for the pokestops to be removed. That was probably the reason they gave. There is no one definition of a hospital being too sensitive to have stops.
I’ve said several times that I understand the decision.
I also understand that there is no answer to the question “how can a sensitive area be re-evaluated?”, question in this post, regardless of the type of area.
I wasn’t the one who mentioned my original appeal, so reread the first message carefully.
It is actually tricky to work out what you are asking, or what you hope to gain from this discussion.
But you asked this after I started my reply.
I read this as asking if there is a route that anyone can make a request to in order to challenge the current policy on this topic.
I hope this is correct.
I don’t know of one.
But you have said you know that this hasn’t got answer?
I’m sorry but I’m confused as to what it is you do want.
In the example cited by another, the area was normal with its wayspots accepted for a long time.
From one day to the next it became sensitive with the removal of the wayspots in question. I think that a third part made as you wrote a « strong case »… but it never appear in this community. It was completely dark.
If I well understand you. We can contact someone with an other « strong case » to reverse the process?
Each appeal is evaluated individually based on its own merits. If you’re referring to your recent appeal in the Wayspot removed appeal, we’ve already shared our decision and all the information we can provide there. Please have another look.
Additionally, please note that changes made through Wayfarer will not reflect in Ingress, as Ingress Prime is no longer associated with Wayfarer. For any requests or appeals related to Ingress, you must contact Ingress support via the in-game support or the webform linked in Niantic Spatial Support here: Reporting a Wayspot — Recon Help Center.