Introducing the India Wayfarer Challenge: 16 - 26 March Learn More

Waypoint for location without street view

I just got a proposed waypoint refused for the following reason "Insufficient evidence that the nomination accurately reflects the submitted real-world location based on comparison of the submitted photo and map views"

That made me think about the way I review waypoints

Most of the art objects, graffiti or Gazebo cannot be seen without street view

Does this mean that I should refuse these nominations?

I used to accept these nomination, but give the location accuracy a 3 stars, 4 if similar objects exists nearby (specially for graffiti).

What do you think?

Comments

  • MarioSGodoy87-PGOMarioSGodoy87-PGO Posts: 163 ✭✭✭

    I only accept this type of request if I can see the object indicated in the support photo or in street view or google maps.

  • WheelTrekker-INGWheelTrekker-ING Posts: 835 ✭✭✭✭✭

    4 stars for a graffiti that you can't verify the building is a dream come true for fakes.

  • Jtronmoore-PGOJtronmoore-PGO Posts: 611 ✭✭✭✭

    If the location is most likely there and you can use the supporting photo to kind of tie things together. Like ok that poi is in supporting pic with the thing they are trying to submit so i can verify that way. If you cant see on street view it isn’t an auto 1*. They say if its probably there give it a 3*. Its just some people are sticklers when it comes to “if i cant see it on street view i reject”. When really thats wrong.

    ive had one nomination rejected twice on it so now I’ll have to do a photo sphere for the location

  • Alanazam-PGOAlanazam-PGO Posts: 17 ✭✭
    edited December 2020

    Nominations don't have to be visible via Google for confirmation. The supporting photo view helps a lot. Ideally, one of the photos contains the proposed wayspot (or a portion of it) as well as at least one distinguishable features of the surrounding that are visible on Google's image set. It's important for the POI to appear in the same shot as something distinguishable. This places the non-visible nomination in the same scene at something that can be verified. If you can find a reference point (or more), than you can at least determine that a photo had to be taken from a certain direction relative to that reference.

    I recently 5-starred an underpass mural because, while it wasn't visible on Google, the supporting photo included distinct, recognizable parts of the main photo, as well as distinct bridge posts in the distance. I could tell that, relative to the view of the bridge and other natural features, the pin was appropriate for the view, and it was the only place that could get the view and host the mural.

    Hiking trails are trickier, but Google usually has trail path noted on the map. A decent supporting feature will show some characteristics, even if it's just confirmation of the contour or type of surrounding (woodsy, plains). And sometimes there's characteristics that match - trail intersections, clearings, waterways of various width, hills (view terrain). It's not possible to pinpoint exact location, but it's often possible to glance over Google's path for the trail and note that the trail that the marker identifies does pass through that location, and there are only so many areas that match the surroundings (if it's true).

    Of course, it depends on how much effort a review takes and if they bother, but a good supporting photo greatly reduces the effort requires to confirm the location of things not captured on Google.

Sign In or Register to comment.