I’m not sure if that is the same in the UK. Let’s just say in my local area, there are care homes where there are some long term vulnerable mentally ill / disabled patients. I would not be comfortable with there being Wayspots on these properties (even if there were eligible Wayspots). I guess different countries / States have different requirements and safeguards.
But why do you think someone with a mental health condition or disability shouldn’t be able to play a game? Thats what I dont understand…
Any of us could become disabled or mentally ill at some point. Do you think you’d still want to play these games if you did? I know I’d probably find the games more important at that point!
If the place is purely medical, with no areas to socialise, no artwork, nothing eligible, then there’s nothing to submit, and that may be the case at some places. Similarly some places may choose to block the games entirely. But if there’s a cafe and a carved fountain in the garden, and residents have the option, why can’t those items become pois?
It’s difficult to explain what I mean without mis-speaking or upsetting anyone. I don’t believe it should be at Care Homes personally, in the same way it shouldn’t be at Fire Stations, Ambulance Stations or certain parts of a Hospitals. Not to the same degree, but on a similar scale.
I worked for one of the Medicaid MCO’s. I talked with a 74 year old woman who was moving a few blocks away because there was a pokemon stop right across the street from her new apartment. She said it would make it so much easier to play in the winter because she had limited mobility.
3 Likes
I think I look at this the same way you do. I don’t think that mentally ill/disabled folks should be denied pokestops, but I do feel that pokestops should not be placed where the general public will impede the efforts of the folks trying to do the work of caring for these patients. Placement is very subjective. If I have to go behind a locked entry to get to a point of interest, I don’t submit it.
1 Like
I tend to submit things when Im at a place for real life reasons.
So if Im at a hospital for an appointment and it has a cafe, I’ll submit that.
If I were to visit a care facility and noticed a decorative fountain or a tennis court I would likely submit that too.
I wouldn’t try to get access to a care facility I wasnt visiting or staying at just to submit something
I do get the point about those in care homes may be players, but my concern goes beyond who in the care homes that plays. It’s a case of do the staff and residents appreciate a crowd of people not associated with the care home doing a raid at the care home which could cause some distress.
I’m not personally comfortable knowingly submitting stuff at a care home, even if it’s acceptable.
1 Like
Ironically, there is an outdoor fitness station at a hospital that I had an appointment at and wonder if it was eligible. I decided not to submit it as I didn’t think it would be appropriate. I need to be convinced that it is eligible before I submit it.
I submitted an exercise walk around a hospital when I was able to find documentation that everyone was welcome to use it. See if you can find something like that. Added a lot of trailmarkers to the game.
We had a local who complained that there weren’t enough stops at the hospital when she was being treated for snakebite. Bond park is a great place for community day, but is home to copperheads, and the baby ones are more likely to bite and not control their poison. So I went looking to see what I could add at the hospital and feel good about.
2 Likes
The hospital is a bit out of the way to be fair. No plans to go back there any time soon. But if I do, I’ll check.
I think this is a good example of an area where we draw our own lines as to what we are comfortable submitting. No one has to submit everything 
And in review you may get something you personally don’t agree with but know that it is eligible and may be acceptable. You shouldn’t vote to reject on your own personal views but a skip allows a graceful solution and for others to decide.
3 Likes
As an example, the appeals team agreed with me on this hospital cafe. It was initially rejected by the ML.
Its a small hospital with no emergency facilities and the building is a big rectangle which gives a large central area over to this cafe space with comfy sofas as well as tables, and all the consultant rooms etc are around the edges. It looks like a hotel reception space 
There are two conflicting elements: it’s nice to have wayspots at these locations for people who play, but counting against that it what happens if a whole crowd of people turn up and cause a disruption. That’s why locations that might block emergency operations are not allowed.
I think I would be minded to accept a submission if it was in a clearly accessible area where it wouldn’t cause an obstruction.
1 Like
Niantic has said in the past that the only restriction is at emergency services. You’re not obliged to submit anywhere. But if you’re rejecting nominations that are on hospital or care home grounds that don’t restrict emergency services, you may need to change to just skipping those.
Oops! I repeated @elijustrying
3 Likes
It’s interesting how the meaning of the “skip” option has changed. In the old system, nominations were rated on a star scale: 1 star meant “no,” 3 stars meant “midiocre, but maybe,” and 5 stars meant “great.” The three daily skip options were useful as an “I don’t know” choice - when really could not guess how to rate.
The new system, however, allows reviewers to explicitly choose “I don’t know” answers for individual questions (possibly all in the same time), so there’s no longer a need to use “skip” that way.
What you’re suggesting is to use “skip” as “leave it for others to decide”. That may or may not mean “I don’t care.” Personally, I use “skip” in a similar way when a nomination is midiocre, not a clear yes or no, but also not worth gatekeeping, especially when much worse nominations are getting accepted all the time.
1 Like