Location is a private residential property (even if historical), farmland, a K12 and under school (preschool, primary/elementary, secondary/high school), child care/daycare center, rehabilitation center, safety shelter
But there are different meanings for a rehab center. My reading of the rejection condition had interpreted this as a drug or addiction rehab situation where patients need close supervision, and the kind of treatment offered there could be considered sensitive.
In reply to a question about a removal yesterday, staff called the Debary Health and Rehabilitation Center an ineligible location. Referring to this closed topic: Location Edit Update? - #12 by NianticAaron
In my opinion, this should be an eligible location. I do not mean eligible as a Wayspot itself, but eligible to have Wayspots there. In the same way as hospitals or other residential communities, meaning in communal areas, and not obstructing emergency services.
Let’s try not to get this topic closed, too, with personal back and forth, but would really love to see others’ thoughts on whether Wayspots here (and at places like this) should be allowed.
My personal opinion is that assisted living facilities are great places to be social for the people who live there, visit, volunteer, etc. Often, these places are pillars of their local communities. Also, it would be sad to lose out on my favorite game just because I aged or had surgery and needed to be in an assisted living facility.
I have also seen the term used for (outpatient) facilities that provide/facilitate physical rehabilitation for people recovering from injuries or illnesses, in which case it could be likened to a fitness studio.
Other similar facilities that use the term “physical therapy” or similar have been approved.
In my view whatever serves the interest of the people living/working in these facilities should be the guiding principle. And we should be very reluctant to make these decisions on their behalf.
If it is really not in the best interest of the location, it is very easy for the property owner to ask for the location to be excluded.
For all we know also people who spend time there may rightfully enjoy playing games, so why would anyone try to interfere.
Obviously I don’t have an issue with preventing stops to show up at emergency services, as there it is clear what the priority should be.
If we want to be more strict in sensitive locations, I would prefer if we would remove all stops at cemeteries, so even the famous graves.
I’ve had multiple direct conversations with Niantic employees about the word “rehabilitation” showing up in the rejection criteria. Every single time, I’ve made this point about rehab for substance abuse being very different from rehab for injury, illness, or disability. Some have been happy to concede that point. But those people no longer work for the conpany. I’m beyond frustrated that knowledge is lost or changed when people leave.
These kinds of decisions need to be made public. Tranparency. Transparency. Transparency.
Thanks @cyndiepooh
One of the functions of this forum is to allow us to discuss these sorts of topics, because so much of Wayfarer is “grey areas” or around topics that have different interpretations around the globe.
It’s good to talk​
Rehabilitation is one of those descriptors in English that is applied to different situations normally in the U.K. with other words to clarify the nature of the type of rehabilitation offered.
By placing it under the broader heading of “Sensitive Locations” I take this to mean that the intention is the type of rehabilitation place that refers to rehabilitation due issues around addiction/substance abuse or a place for support and recovery around Mental Health. Common sense ( not always common) says that these fit with the context of sensitive.
By contrast places that offer support and recovery services for those that have had an accident or illness that has meant they need assistance to rehabilitate into ideally independent living is not something to me that is by its nature sensitive. These are mostly people craving normality having had life turned upside down.
In my view it should be interpreted as sensitive rehabilitation centres to allow for nuance and a variation to be applied.
Sorry my lack of language skills doesn’t allow me to comment as to how this descriptor is used in other languages and countries.
I now have the Amy Whinehouse song in my head…. I can’t go to sleep now!
But on a serious point… I agree that with the point of there being different definitions of what a Rehab is. There are a few local Physio Clinics near me…. that offer some form of injury rehabs…. are they a no go sub?
I made some comments on the post yesterday which did get some comments I was not expecting. With time to consider I believe that it was due to my wording and not my intensions.
This is the type of place I used for several years. 1 hour exercise class tailored to individual long term illnesses and to each individual, then a 30 minute social (tea, biscuits and a chat). I went as the doctors suggested it and I got 12 weeks free from the NHS. Thought I would do the 12 weeks to show willing, finished doing about 4 years.
I nominated it as it is also a “normal” gym and highlighted the “social” and it was accepted.
My “worry” stated yesterday is that if I get 1 for Review then I do not know what illnesses / injuries are treated at the said location and unlike some other types of waypoint which are easy Accept / Reject I find these require more information.
Hope this helps people understand what I was trying to say (probably not what I actually said ) and that I was definitely not trying to be biased to any group.
I did not copy enough of the quote. It is not placed under Sensitive locations. It is just straight up on a line for ineligible locations, along with SFPRP, K-12, and safety shelter.
I know we often say that the onus is on the submitter to explain everything about the location. I have no problem with anyine skipping if they are unsure or if they don’t feel like doing the research themselves. But in this case, we had all done the research. We know this is not for substance abuse or mental health crises (whIch wouldn’t really be called rehab in the US). We know this is for injury, illness, disability and aging. Therefore, bringing extra “what ifs” into the conversation only serves to muddy the issue.
Physical rehab to me makes me think of medical facilities, which to me seems like a sensitive location. Especially in the area I’m in having a lot of military related rehab, soldiers coming to terms with amputations or other serious injuries. I would expect there to be policies limiting cell phone use out of respect to these and other patients.
Elder care/nursing home type facilities would depend on exactly what services they provide, for the ones I’ve been to, I would consider the private rooms to be sensitive in nature. Public areas could have something eligible if there’s something distinct located at the facility.
Again, as someone who works at a facility like this (that helps people rehab after amputation), limiting cell phone use makes no sense in modern medicine. The cell phone is a person’s lifeline to the outside world. If you limit their cellphone, they are stuck with nothing to do but think about their changed circumstances. By allowing them to continue to enjoy hobbies like gaming, you are reinforcing that they are still a person with hopes and dreams. They have new challenges to face, but who they are as a person is still the same.
I’m not saying “no rehab facility should allow any cell phone use ever”. Just that I would expect facilities to have a policy in place. And that will depend on a lot of factors. Like I said I’m in an area with a lot of military and I know there are rehab facilities here with no cell phone areas. So they can focus on the work they’re doing and respect the privacy of the patients. Maybe they’re doing rehab wrong​, but I understand their choice to do that.
So for what it’s worth, I thought I would share that perspective.
You aren’t supposed to use your phone inside movie theaters either, but that doesn’t make the entire cinema ineligible as a location. Bathrooms are also “no phone” zones but most eligible locations have bathrooms. You just don’t use your phone where you’re not supposed to.
Ideally we could have a reverse of the “Property Owner Removals” where people that are connected to the location gets to state whether they believe waypoints on site would be positive / neutral or Negative for the Residents.
Not sure whether this is even feasible but with @seaprincesshnb description of her workplace it seems that it is a perfect place but we can’t be sure this is the same for all locations.
The problems I see are…
The different types of location around the world that may use terms such as “Rehabilitation Center” differently.
The Reviewers who are unlikely to have any knowledge of what exactly the location is used for.
The nominators that don’t care as long as they get another waypoint.
Count me in as one who’d love to see the concept of “Rehab” defined by Scopely. If that includes physical/occupational rehabilitation centers, then why? What renders these locations sensitive or in need of special handling? In my hospital system, we frequently discharge post-acute patients to rehab centers or rehab-designated beds in skilled nursing facilities. These same hospitals have large public areas and many wayspots - so how are the after-care facilities less eligible? If the item nominated is in a communal area in that facility, and meets eligibility criteria, what is the risk to the customers or the facility itself?
Sure operational areas can restrict cell phone usage. But we aren’t talking about operational areas. We are talking about otherwise eligible objects and places within the facility property.
) and that I was definitely not trying to be biased to any group.
