Historical Marker - legit or fake?
HeavenlyNostril-PGO
Posts: 27 ✭✭
I reviewed this one and rejected it as a fake location abuse but wanted to get your thoughts as I wasn't 100% confident about it. PoI location is at 31.807278, -92.734239.
The marker is for "William Edenborn" but I could not find it in any Louisiana historical marker databases. The primary PoI photo looks suspect (bit blurry, shading looks off) but I'm really not sure. Last the location happens to be across the street from the local highschool which increases my suspicions. Thanks!
Answers
Like you, I can't find any record of this existing. That being said, the ground around the base of the pole does make it look like it has been installed fairly recently. I think in this situation it would be best to treat it as if it does exist. If it turns out it doesn't, then it can always be removed (assuming it got accepted in the first place).
Probably real but I don't have time to check the background carefully against maps.
Pedestrian access, though?
The content of the sign is odd to me too:
Unless there is some indication otherwise on Street View, the pedestrian access is via the fact that the sign (if it exists) is in a wide, well-maintained, grassy str*p alongside the road.
Upon further review I think this sign is probably real. All of the landscape lines up perfectly with Google Maps so the photo was taken in the correct location (based on the supporting photo), and I don't see signs of obvious photoshop... it looks like a newly-installed marker. I think it's a rejection for safe pedestrian access, though.
It's in the front yard of a church. While pedestrian access is poorly shown in the nomination photos, context makes me feel like it's implied. That isn't a road sign meant to be driven past. Pedestrian access does not require sidewalks, grass is not lava. Sure, it's on the side of a road but nearby speed limit sign is relatively low (35mph).
It's in the front yard of a church.
The grass is not lava.
“The grass is not lava” Ha. I’m going to use that
looks real but I would've rejected it as low quality photo anyway it looks like it was taken from a car
Oh my this is getting better and better.
It's not enough to just assume something was taken from a car: "taken from a car" is a 1* rating only if car parts are visible or the photo was taken through a window showing glare, fog, rain, or other obscuring stuff. Maybe it was taken from a bike, or a sidewalk, or to avoid stepping on a snake. Gotta give the submitters the benefit of a doubt sometimes.
ok sorry if that bothered you but its still low quality in my opinion. the object is not centered and it's taken from far away. I can barely read what's on it.
Let me know if you think something specific about my rejection rationale was incorrect.
As far as location goes, while I do live an hour outside this location of Atlanta, LA I am sure you don't want Wayfarer to restrict the reviewers to just Atlanta LA (population 163) or Winn Parish (population 14k) or it would never get enough votes.
As far as pedestrian access I agree the mowed grass on the side of the road is sufficient for access in these rural areas. I've had my share of nominations rejected in these rural areas where for instance a church had a gravel parking lot in front with nothing paved and the rejection reason was lack of pedestrian access. Makes me carefully consider when to apply an Upgrade if the nomination has aspects more common to rural areas, sometimes I'll prefer let the nomination sit in voting for months so it does not get exposed to more urban-minded reviewers.
This must be why so many people come to the forums to say their legitimate nomination gets rejected. It’s not centered? Really?
These are all good points. My brief searches also find the 75% claim mentioned on the sign was in reference to the barbed wire market, which is a far cry from the entire steel market. I would hope a historical society would be a bit more careful than that. Taken together, these things seem fairly suspicious.
But now at home on my desktop I see that the main photo is just a (strangely) cropped version of the supporting photo... let's just say that, if the sign is real despite the apparent irregularities, the submitter didn't do themselves any favors.
yep the photo makes a big deal for the wayspot. it shows whether or not people are following the guidelines, people need to take this seriously if they want it approved. you don't have to agree with me it just my opinion
It's one thing to say that that photo is bad and that it may get the nomination rejected. In fact, I would agree with you on both points. It is another thing, however, to say that the photo is so bad that it should be rejected. From everything Niantic has told us, the "low quality photo" rejection reason should only be used in cases where the photo quality is bad enough for the object to be difficult to recognize (or in a case where you can actually see part of the car in the photo, as mentioned above).
Of course, Niantic's actual criteria pages are so lacking in detail that it's tough to see how anyone would know that without being a regular user of resources like this community.
Also, as I outlined in my previous post, I think it is pretty likely that this submission is fake. The photo is a large part of that, but the correct rejection reason for that case is fake nomination, not low quality photo.
Just a tip, if something you're nominating doesn't show on street view (like this one doesn't), use the Google Street View app (a separate app from Google Maps) to take a photosphere and then publish it.
Whilst it's pretty obvious to me that the location in the pictures is the same area as Street View shows, having a photosphere there would help this nomination.
Photo quality seems fine to me, remember these arent high quality photographers, they are people using a phone camera