I was looking at empty cells around my area using IITC to see what I could nominate for new wayspots.
I came across this Firefighter Statue that is in an empty cell. However, it is also on the same property as the volunteer fire department.
I know that fire department themselves aren’t eligible because it would obstruct emergency services but searching around the forums there was some chatter about being a certain enough distance away from the active drive would be fine. This is the street view.
Would you consider nominating this or would this still be considered obstructing emergency services?
I have gotten statues at fire stations removed for possibly obstructing emergency services, so I wouldn’t submit it. The rejection criteria clearly notes that the location of the POI may obstruct emergency services or interfere with operations. While it may not seem like this would be the case, someone could be accessing the POI from the driveway, and if those trucks have to roll out, they would have to get out of the way quickly.
That particular statue is sufficiently off to the side and away from the driveway where the trucks roll out. You’d have to stand at least 5 metres away from it to be in the way and given the large hardstanding around the statue, normal gameplay would be to stand by the statue, even for a large group.
My own view is that this is perfectly eligible and safe to access. You can’t reject a wayspot because the pin location is safe but 5 meters away would be unsafe, because this would cause all roadside objects to be ineligible.
And 5m could be too close.
Pretty much anything that is on the grounds of a fire station is ineligible, even if it’s not near the driveway. I’ve seen many try to nominate things on the grounds of fire and police stations, but the stance has been that if they are on the grounds, they may obstruct emergency services and operations, so they are at ineligible locations.
I wouldn’t be surprised if you did try to nominate this and ML rejects it for it being on the fire station grounds and possibly obstructing emergency services.
My view is yes nominate it @smilexd69420
Take the PIN to the pavement side
The footpath curves round up. There is an inscription to be read
This is not for no one to ever visit. It is there so people do visit it. Do see it and do honour those who give for their community. It has been placed to be accessible.
Yes as others have said there is a risk of rejection due to obstructing the emergency service. But I would go for it and see what happens. I certainly would avoid words that call out emergency.
That said the plaque on the EMS side is more suspect. With driveways and so on being an issue.
PLEASE note. I am not from the USA so my view of these is suspect 
but if I saw one in my community I would give it a go.
1 Like
This is another instance where a simple fix to the criteria could clarify. If Niantic did not want anything on Emergency Services Property they could just change Criteria to state that in the same way as SFPRP.
This could cause a massive problem for hospitals, because defining the area that counts as “Emergency Services Property” would be hard if you don’t want it to be the entire hospital. I suspect that Niantic have not stated this because they don’t want to exclude like this. Wayspots should be individually evaluated for safety and access etc.
Not specifically responding to this post.
I do think there are a lot of potential nuances and cultural differences around something like a fire service, or any emergency service for that matter.
I personally like the word “obstructs” or interferes. This allows individual cases to be made. Locally the ambulance and fire service places are glorified garages with an accomation block for down time. Highly functional, clearly important but with nothing of note.
This case is interesting in the U.K. we walk to places a lot more than in the USA, so I can easily imagine walking up to this and not interfering even with those going through the nearby reception door never mind the trucks. I wouldn’t consider it to be a safety issue either as a pedestrian or for the workers in the building.
But those are U.K. eyes.
BTW I was far more concerned with the safety issue in that google view of the person standing in the road carrying a child and looking at a phone 
But maybe if that is how people behave…..
1 Like
For anyone looking for an update:
I went ahead and nominated this because while I do see that you could argue that this would obstruct emergency operations, it would be in some extremely edge case scenarios which I believe would be highly unlikely to happen.
So at first it got rejected for the typical reason I figured it would get rejected. However, it was also rejected for having face and body parts in it which I thought was pretty funny.
I submitted an appeal and gave laid out my argument just to see what would happen and it got accepted.
I don’t know what this means going forward for people in similar circumstances but in this specific scenario when the firefighter memorial is well away from the operating driveway it seems that it is acceptable.
Thanks for everyone who gave their opinions on this thread 
4 Likes
Good that you laughed about the face & body parts rejection. Some people pick the weirdest rejections when they feel they just want to reject a submission. I’m happy that the appeal worked, although obviously not everyone will agree.
What this means going forward is nothing. Appeal decisions only mean that that specific submission was agreed upon by the appeal reviewer and does not mean that Niantic’s position has been changed or confirmed or anything.
5 Likes
