I know that elementary schools are prohibited by Niantic’s rules and criteria, but if that school has a soccer field or even an art mural, would the field, the mural, or even a piglet be valid? Since most schools here in Brazil are public, is it possible to submit a request for the field, mural, etc., to be accepted?
If they are on school grounds, they are ineligible.
This includes the outer facing facade, fence of these locations, and property boundaries.
“K-12” is a term used in the United States for schools. It means Kindergarten through 12th grade. The term is explained in the clarification as “focused for persons under 18 years of age.”
Oh no… even if I submit the request as “Sports court” or even the playground inside the school, it’s rejected? Since I’m not submitting the school itself? That’s a shame! Thank you.
The situation depends on the property. If the property is a public place that the school sometimes uses, then it is eligible. If the court or field or playground is on the property of the school, then it is not eligible, even if the public is allowed to use it after school hours. You will need to prove that the court or field or playground is not on school property if you submit there. We have some local public parks set up adjacent to school property, and I was able to link to evidence from the town that these are public parks.
When in doubt, reviewers should reject if it looks like it could be school property.
The place in question is my old high school. There’s a public soccer field there that’s used by both students and the city government; other schools reserve the field for events, and the city also reserves it for cultural events. The problem is what you mentioned: it’s located on school property.
Continuing the discussion from Private Residences, Farmland & K-12:
This definitely doesn’t change the argument as you are saying “not only local people under 18 use it but other people under 18 also do”.
The criteria is not just limited to schools but also “other facilities”. Most reviewers view it as if it;s somewhere that a parent leaves the child with other adults then it should be Rejected. Scout facilities / camps are a common one.
I don’t see the other facilities mentioned in the dutch version of the rejection criteria.
Edit: it does say another “opvangpunt”, we consider that daycare (after school care)
But anything on school grounds is certainly ineligible.
It probably is in the English version, but this may get lost in translation in other languages.
Ah, I see, this is exactly the same. We just don’t consider scouting as daycare
Nobody is stating this. In the criteria listed on these forums it states " K-12 (schools or facilities primarily focused for persons under 18 years of age)".
It is these “facilities” that scouting fall in to.
Not in de dutch version:
- De locatie is privé-eigendom (zelfs als het historisch is), landbouwgrond, een school (peuterschool, basisschool of middelbare school), kinderdagverblijf, revalidatiecentrum of ander opvangpunt
Edit:
In English: school means: kindergarten, primary school and highschool
the german version is the same as the dutch:
- Ort ist ein Privatgrundstück (gilt auch für historische Gebäude), Ackerland, eine Grundschule oder weiterführende Schule, eine Kindertagesstätte, ein Rehabilitationszentrum oder ein Schutzraum
Same for the French version
- L’emplacement est une propriété résidentielle privée (même si historique), des terres agricoles, une école (maternelle, école primaire, collègue, lycée), une garderie/crèche, un centre de réadaptation, un refuge
please see the clarification here:
I know, however please note that reviewers will act according to the clarification in their own language.
We don’t have k12 over here, we do our review according to the official guidelines in our own language.
To me it doesn’t matter anymore, I stopped reviewing and I don’t nominate anymore.
I’m sorry to hear you have stopped both reviewing and nominating. It can be rewarding but it is also a challenge. I think there are things that could be done to improve Wayfarer education and documentation.
I know, I have reviewed over 5.000 nominations just in the last 12 months. But as the official criteria in Dutch, often don’t match the view of Niantic, I would have to reject wayspots that are in line with the critera as written in Dutch. Naturally I can skip them, but I just don’t enjoy reviewing anymore.
I have often mentioned the Dutch recreational bike trails over here as an example, this is another example.
If Niantic wants to prevent any stops for locations for people under age 18, they should mention this in the criteria. And it clearly does not mention this in at least the German, French, Spanish and Dutch versions (those are the languages that I speak, and I have checked them).
I respect that in the end it is not up to me, but it has made me stop.
I can see how this issue can be frustrating, and global communications that are translated often capture nouns and verbs well, but wash away context that is woven into conjugates and descriptive adjectives and adverbs.
I’m a super green reviewer, so I’m trying my hand at unpacking the issues.
First - I’d propose taking a break for a little while and considering how this submission can be replaced with a very similar but valid one. Try the revised submission and get your confidence in the system back, then resume being a part of this community if that helps. Your interpretations of the rules, how they translate, and your disagreement with the clarifications are all welcome discussion here, and you deliver these courteously.
When it comes to the “K-12” rules; consider a few concerns from an accessibility standpoint.
Waypoints on school grounds or in any area designated for minors and directly responsible adults “only” present inherent risks to both children, other adults, and authority figures who are responsible for the safety and security of that area.
Waypoints in these areas present an unnecessarily high risk of one of these scenarios:
- Minors who participate being drawn away from their supervision to visit the waypoint, or distracted from their original purpose for being at the site.
- Adult participants who dont belong on those grounds (either at all or during normal operating hours, such as during the school day) accessing the area and wandering around amongst or through groups of minors to visit the waypoint, watching and aiming a phone.
- Adult participants who do belong there diverting a portion or all of their attention away from fulfilling their role.
- Adult non-participants who are over-enthusiatic about fulfilling their role becoming alarmed or suspicious by the participants above.
- Advertisers who sponsor waypoints and legal issues with being able to prove that ads are not targeted at minors if they appear in these areas at random.
So I dont view it as “not wanting minors to play”; more as a requirement that waypoints must be in safe places for participants of all ages, alone or in groups, during all reasonable operating hours of the areas. Here in the US most schools have sports fields on their grounds that communities can access during non-school daylight times. Community sports leagues and clubs are permitted to reserve these areas as well for events - but these events are temporary. There are still a large majority of times that a lone adult or large group of hundreds of people would not be welcome to wander in these areas, so they come close but do not rise above the threshold of a valid waypoint - like it did in this case with the soccer field.
My best advise for your revision considerations: Schools arent typically in secluded areas in most of the world, they tend to be placed in or around other community-centric places. Consider landmarks on public walkways near the area but off the school grounds and not part of the “facade” (this is a loose term, and I agree it could use some more clarification), or other features and landmarks in the surrounding places where all-age access is not restricted at reasonable times.
Thanks to anyone who reads my walls of text!
Happy hunting!
I forgot one item - the scouts.
These may be more a US type of thing, where we have campgrounds that are specifically purposed for minor-only camping groups. The parents of the children who entrust another adult with their safety and security expect the same if not more from a camp counselor or scout master as they do any school teacher.
Similar to the scenarios I listed before, these camps often contain archery and other projectile ranges. No one should be walking around these grounds freely, and anyone who does would raise alarms with the supervising adults and authorities that secure the areas.