the first one was this lokal game store. it is a meeting point for card gamers in our region. you can play diffrent games there on there specefic league days, for example yu-gi-oh, pokemon, one piece and so on. it got rejected because it has the word “pokemon” in it. but it has a pokemon league, so why do they reject it just because i tell the trues? source: Events: Turniere, Spielrunden und mehr — Mage Store Düsseldorf - Die ganze Welt der Spiele
so why do niantic reviewers dont look carefull and reject things for wron reasons, what means we have to waste appeals again and again, until we maybe find one niantic reviewer who reads the text? and yes i explained everything in the appeals and i also gave them the link in the appeals.
For the 1st yes, it is guideline not to use terms such as “pokemon” that reference something from a Niantic game in thre title or description since you are nominating a ‘wayspot’ that may appear in more games than the one you are using to submit(even tho it says you are submiting a “pokestop/portal” in game). Game stores are certainly tricky since you think thatd be an applicable term for them but I would still recommend avoiding them. Maybe replace the game specific word with a more generic term like “Trading Card League” or something similar and resubmit cause other than the game word in the description it seems like that submission would be fine(im assuming since I cant see your original submissions since you only posted the rejection reasoning) since game & hobby stores like that are great places to socialize and often great places to explore since they can hold events.
You can say Pokémon if you’re nominating something about Pokémon though ie a gaming store. What you can’t do is write about Pokémon Go for no good reason ie mentioning pokestops in the description. The reason is that the waypoints are used across multiple games not just Go. But being able to play the Pokémon trading card game at a store is relevant information about the PoI and doesn’t make the description irrelevant for ingress etc
We’ve seen this before - the appeal reviewer made a mistake in my opinion with the store. It sounds like a great place to socialise and play games together
Im aware of this thats why I phrased it the way I did and said they are tricky and would still recommend avoiding it. If someone from Niantic made the mistake of denying it because of that term, I wouldnt put it past potentially community members denying it because of that term. So sometimes just best to avoid something that could result in an incorrect rejection when you could substitute something else Same way i feel when people mention Graffiti when talking about a legitimate Mural. Its not a good descriptive word due to some of the rejection criteria etc
I can’t really read the info sign but thats also a strange rejection reason from the appeals team. Can’t comment on the sign itself in terms of eligibility but the reason given is really sad in my opinion
We’ve seen before that there is an idea that residential care homes are somehow inappropriate locations for in game items, however they are communities where people live, exercise and socialise as well as having their care needs met, and as we’ve discussed before, some of the community here are old enough to live at one (even if they don’t yet) and are active players - why shouldn’t their tennis courts, swimming pools, gyms, coffee places and other community spaces be able to be waypoints?
Thats just ageism plain and simple. I’d really like to see an update from the team to clarify that they believe people over 50 can play Niantic games and shouldn’t have their communal facilities excluded for some reason in a staff member’s head that middle aged and older or disabled people somehow need protection from gaming, when in fact many are avid gamers
Someone needing medical care does not need to be prevented from seeing eligible items nearby become PoIs. It also doesn’t mean they are automatically vulnerable like a child.
The facility itself likely doesnt meet any critieria, but items within for example pools, social spaces, gyms etc could make waypoints. An information sign about some historical features might be a good addition too.
A good example of how this can work is hospitals. A hospital isn’t an automatically ineligible location. Their emergency area is, but some areas are cafes, relaxation areas, sensory gardens, gyms, and artwork. All those items can be considered for PoIs even though people with injuries, disabilities and illnesses attend the location.
Welcome, sorry to see the frustrating outcomes.
In order to help, we would need to see complete nominations.
I agree that there is no problem with a Pokémon mention in the cases where it is appropriate for the location.
I don’t see anything wrong with either of those, criteria calls out for gaming and hobby stores to be good nominations. As long as there isn’t any interference for emergency services a senior citizen center is not a reason to reject, are old people not allowed to play games on their phones? Hope I never get old.
The first one was rejected for inaccurate description, and being the OP hasn’t provided the full nomination info, we can only assume that they mentioned some game terms.
As for the plaque, I did find it here, 51.49213764524219, 7.306120593457006 (it’s circled in red):
The OP has shared some info with me in a German speaking group.
The store didn’t have any game mentions at all, this was a mistake by the Niantic reviewer not realising that the Pokémon mention is not game related, and thus is not sanctioned under rejection criteria. The Wayspot has been overturned and is now accepted.
For the second one, it seems that Niantic reviewers understand that this “Tagespflege” business that sits in this building is a medical care centre for senior citizens, and as such consider it a sensitive location.
It’s difficult, my personal view is, if there are just elderly people living there with some caretakers helping them I don’t see the problem either. But there can also be people with severe medical conditions in there that I would not want to disturb. It is not that clear to me if they are specialized in one of these groups or are mixed use, so it might not be possible to argue for it by making that distinction.
Would love to get a confirmation from staff that people over X years with a medical condition can’t play Niantic games at a specialist site but young people with a broken ankle can interact with the hospital’s coffee shop waypoint
Still reads like ageism to me. If they had said it was a medical centre that led to the rejection I wouldn’t be as concerned
Great news that the games store was overturned and accepted!
I reacted to kawin’s message for sharing the information with us and the overturned one. And for explaining what Niantic’s stance seems to be, not for agreeing with Niantic’s stance necessarily.
We have a lot of 55+ communities around here which have active folks who definitely enjoy playing Niantic games. Most of these communities will have areas that folks can move into if care becomes needed, and some have specific wards (for lack of a better term) for those with dementia. I would consider the latter part of the facilities sensitive and not submit anything there, but the rest of the property is a great place to play - and places to play and be active are the kinds of things I submit in those communities.
This kind of senior center is for vibrant, active adults. The current video features folks exercising, painting, learning computer skills, and line dancing. The Senior Center is an official Town of Cary public art gallery and early voting site. There is nothing sensitive about this Senior Center.