Can you still bring snacks and drinks in the park?

[theluckyrabbit]

They're not that easy to see because the picnic area is surrounded by hedges.

 

[Kender]

They're not that easy to see because the picnic area is surrounded by hedges.

Oh weird. They definitely do not show on the map at all. The map for locating the lockers on the official app shows that the lockers are inside security and nothing available outside.

It's not that I don't believe you, just that I find it interesting/odd they don't show on the map at all. Perhaps it's intentional so they're reserved for those who do have the too large coolers?

There's also no way those lockers could accommodate every guest who brings in a lunch (even if intended to be eaten at the picnic tables) that contained a canned drink. The ones inside security would need to be used as well and the rules allow for the specified coolers to come through security.

And then there's still the issue of the picnic area being on the DTD side. Those entering from Harbor still have to pass through security. There is the option of an escort... But really? An escort for a canned drink that is not officially banned, a "rule" that is only arbitrarily applied, and there may not be locker space available outside security (assuming still some inside security).

 

[figment_jii]

"Not limited to" is not intended (in my experience) to ever mean "when we feel like randomly not allowing something". It's to allow for updating the list as things are discovered to be an issue (out unwanted). Example: toy guns and selfie sticks. These did not used to reside on that list. They do now. It's not only recently that people have been turned away for cans, but the list has never been updated.

So yes, I agree. It's vague. But I don't agree it's vague just to randomly and arbitrarily introduce temporary, unannounced bans. I rarely complain to customer service, but I would complain about that if I encountered it.

I don't think they have the wording so they can be random or arbitrary, but I do think that the vague terminology like "not limited to" and "other items we determine may be harmful and disruptive" is there so they can prohibit items without notice. It gives them a fallback when new items are added (and the website is not yet updated) or to use their discretion about banning an items that isn't explicitly mentioned on the list. That way, if someone were to complain that the items they wanted to bring into the parks wasn't on the list, Guest Services or the Security CM can say that they can prohibit any item deemed potentially harmful or disruptive and that the list isn't meant to be exhaustive. I think that can appear random or arbitrary to the guests, but hopefully the Security CMs are ultimately just following the company-specified guidelines.

 

[Kender]

I don't think they have the wording so they can be random or arbitrary, but I do think that the vague terminology like "not limited to" and "other items we determine may be harmful and disruptive" is there so they can prohibit items without notice. It gives them a fallback when new items are added (and the website is not yet updated) or to use their discretion about banning an items that isn't explicitly mentioned on the list. That way, if someone were to complain that the items they wanted to bring into the parks wasn't on the list, Guest Services or the Security CM can say that they can prohibit any item deemed potentially harmful or disruptive and that the list isn't meant to be exhaustive. I think that can appear random or arbitrary to the guests, but hopefully the Security CMs are ultimately just following the company-specified guidelines.

But that's my point. It has been quite spread out the reports of people seeing the item in question (cans of beverage) being denied entry and no update at all.

I'm not calling the terminology many to allow for changes making things able to be random or arbitrary. I'm only saying that's how the issue of canned beverages is coming across as it has not been ever uniformly applied or ever updated on the website.

I'm saying the terminology is to allow for changes that will be implemented.

 

[figment_jii]

I honestly think that the department that updates the website and in-park operations are not necessarily on the same page. It's quite possible (and frankly wouldn't surprise me) if park security decided to prohibit canned drinks, but not inform the website team. Overall, DLR is not known for uniformity of information among CMs. So it wouldn't surprise me at all if one CM would interpret the rules to prohibit something, while another CM would not prohibit that same item.

 

[Bud Ice]

Just gitta be straight and can be hit and miss.
Overachievers at the gate may enfore the policy
stricter than others.

Overall peeps are pretty cool, especially with kids in tow.

 

[Kender]

But that in itself is just a customer service nightmare: having rogue CMs interpreting the rules to ban a specific item that is easily debated as allowable through security (even if not within the parks themselves). It's one thing when rules for a ride are interpreted more strictly (like removing a hat on Soarin') by a CM. But this in my opinion is a horse of a different color and should be spelled out like glass containers are if they aren't allowed through security.

I know I've seen people post for quite some time randomly encountering being denied canned beverage entry. It does seem to be rare to be stopped looking at this small sampling (or it could be common... Hard to tell with so few people reporting one way or the other).

But my point here is that if they can implement a ban and website update in a day, surely they can do so in the course of at least a couple years. If it's truly considered a danger to bring in by security, then that's something that should be listed on the website.