How to rate a wayspot nomination when the Google street view is old and doesn’t show the object?

I have come across several nominations which generally appear acceptable except that I cannot find the object in the Google street view, however, the Google street view is 5-10 years old and it seems likely that the object has been added since. It seems like rejecting these as “Location Mismatch” isn’t fair, rating the location as three star (object likely exists but is obscured) doesn’t quite seem right, nor does rating as one star (cannot find the object).

i tend to either skip these or rate the location as one star, is there a better strategy for these?

Best Answers

  • Duiomar-PGODuiomar-PGO Posts: 457 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Answer ✓

    I usually just go with three stars in scenarios where I can verify that the location it's being claimed to be at is correct but it's too new to show up. Seems to match the spirit of the rules which don't provide for that situation very well.

  • Gendgi-PGOGendgi-PGO Posts: 3,274 Ambassador
    Answer ✓

    The submitters may make an indisputable case for the location by including objects that are easily recognizable.

    For example, many of my nominations are created weeks or months after installation. I have nominated trail markers without photospheres, entirely new buildings in what looked like an empty field, and one of my personal favorite examples below, where Street View shows a residential house completely defying my nomination photos:

    The submitter should do their best to clearly spell out the location. "Object is new and not identifiable on Satellite or Street View, but supporting photo shows nearby [object] in relation to the nomination to prove location accuracy."

    Last night I reviewed a piece of art posted on a utility pole. Nearby Wayspots implied it as part of a series and the photo was close enough to show the art was permanently attached to the pole. Street View was several years old. The photos didn't do a great job, but the background of both showed a parking lot that matched "across the street" from the utility pole the nomination was pinned at, making it an easy acceptance.

    I also recall a nomination made by a friend in a new development area where she included pictures of street signs as the primary focus of the Support photo with the object in the background that I thought was very cleverly done.

Answers

  • Duiomar-PGODuiomar-PGO Posts: 457 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Answer ✓

    I usually just go with three stars in scenarios where I can verify that the location it's being claimed to be at is correct but it's too new to show up. Seems to match the spirit of the rules which don't provide for that situation very well.

  • Gendgi-PGOGendgi-PGO Posts: 3,274 Ambassador
    Answer ✓

    The submitters may make an indisputable case for the location by including objects that are easily recognizable.

    For example, many of my nominations are created weeks or months after installation. I have nominated trail markers without photospheres, entirely new buildings in what looked like an empty field, and one of my personal favorite examples below, where Street View shows a residential house completely defying my nomination photos:

    The submitter should do their best to clearly spell out the location. "Object is new and not identifiable on Satellite or Street View, but supporting photo shows nearby [object] in relation to the nomination to prove location accuracy."

    Last night I reviewed a piece of art posted on a utility pole. Nearby Wayspots implied it as part of a series and the photo was close enough to show the art was permanently attached to the pole. Street View was several years old. The photos didn't do a great job, but the background of both showed a parking lot that matched "across the street" from the utility pole the nomination was pinned at, making it an easy acceptance.

    I also recall a nomination made by a friend in a new development area where she included pictures of street signs as the primary focus of the Support photo with the object in the background that I thought was very cleverly done.

  • X0bai-PGOX0bai-PGO Posts: 1,667 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I support both the camps above.

    When nominating, I call out visible landmarks, intersections, etc in my supporting to prove my location and pedestrian access claims. It’s always best to proactively remove any doubt.

    When reviewing, if the supporting image generally matches the satellite image, the difference being the subject, 3 stars for location; 4 stars if there’s something demonstrably identical, such as a sidewalk pattern or a standout object or building.

    That said, I’m a big believer that something in the image should make the location claim, and sometimes image backgrounds will definitely prove that the pin is in the wrong location.

  • JamesUK2022-PGOJamesUK2022-PGO Posts: 4 ✭✭

    I've come across this myself a few times and one of them was actually in my city so I went and had a look and nominted it with 3 stars and submitted a comment stateing that I had personally been to that location and Google Street View as usual is out of date. It eventually got added.

Sign In or Register to comment.