Reject nomination or "Location cannot be found" with bad supporting information picture ?

Quivittoq-PGOQuivittoq-PGO Posts: 8 ✭✭
edited July 2022 in Criteria Clarifications

After more than 200 reviews I am mostly struggling with either rejecting a submission outright (1*) or just saying the "Location cannot be found" (1*).

In these cases the picture in the supporting information is either almost identical as the wayspot picture, or shows no clues about the surroundings that could be checked against Google Earth/View. Ie. street configuration, nearby buildings, etc.

My question:

Should I reject the submission because of "Wayspot Criteria" and "Other Rejection Criteria" with a description: "Supporting information picture cannot be referenced against location in Google Earth/Map/View"


Should I (if all other criteria are valid) put just a 1* in the location accuracy with: "Supporting information picture cannot be referenced against location in Google Earth/Map/View".

Some of the supporting pictures seems like purposely showing no surroundings, so I could even mark them as a "Abuse / Fake Nominaton" because no other supporting information. Generally I save "Fake Nominaton" for when supporting information picture clearly allows determination of a fake nomination.

How does either of these two options affect my rating?

My rating dropped from good to fair (soon poor again) despite my best efforts and 100 % scores in the test.

What is the general opinon on how to deal with a submission based on bad supporting information picture?



  • Gendgi-PGOGendgi-PGO Posts: 3,279 Ambassador

    Do you have any screenshot examples?

    Very rarely would I rate the "location verification" section below a 3* if I intend on otherwise approving the nomination. If I see a trail marker or footbridge with trees in the photos and the pin is in the middle of a forest but I can't see the object, I'll give it 3* because contextually it's likely there. Other clues provided, such as a weblink to a trail map or seeing a clearing for the trail would cause me to rate as high as a 4* or 5* even if i can't actually see the sign/etc.

    If the nomination obviously does not belong there and I can't immediately find where it goes, I reject it overall for "location mismatch."

  • Melurra-PGOMelurra-PGO Posts: 384 ✭✭✭✭

    Agreements are only based on whether you accepted a wayspot that was ultimately accepted or whether you rejected a wayspot that was ultimately rejected. For rejected nominations, it doesn't depend on if your rejection reason matches the rejection reason that others picked, so don't worry about that. Some nominations have more than one applicable rejection reason.

    I wish there were a "location could not be confirmed" rejection reason, for when it's equally probable that a nomination is or isn't really there. Some supporting photos being similar to the main photo can be malicious (like trying to avoid the house in the background if it's on single-family residential property), but a lot of the time it's just ignorance or laziness. I suspect that like me, you like to use "location mismatch" for when you do know the true location, but it's not where the pin is. Nonetheless, it's still fine to use "location mismatch" for situations when you just can't confirm the existence of the object in that location and have reason to be skeptical.

  • Quivittoq-PGOQuivittoq-PGO Posts: 8 ✭✭

    I go through great lengths to verify through GoogleMaps and StreetView. If it is residential (with roads) than it is clearly "location cannot be verified" (1*) to me, if the supporting image lacks all those, intentional or not. Because it might be a strategically located waypoint near a submitters house. If it is a forest (away from residential houses) I am more keen to put a 3* in the location probability.

    So the rejection criterium by itself won't be affecting my rating. That knowledge helps.

  • JillJilyJabadoo-PGOJillJilyJabadoo-PGO Posts: 1,082 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I use 1* main with "Mismatched Location" if the supporting picture doesn't appear to be in the same area as the pin.

    If I can't find the object on the map and there's no Streetview of it, I'll 1* the map location. For example, a trail marker where the pin is in a forest, but no photosphere of it and no other identifying objects in the supporting photo to show it isn't somewhere else on the trail.

    If the object can be found on the map, but the pin is in the wrong location, I move the pin.

  • flatmatt-PGOflatmatt-PGO Posts: 1,585 ✭✭✭✭✭

    If the object is likely to be at the designated location, such as in the trail marker in a forest location, reviewing guidelines are to give it a 3-star rating.

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

    What makes it “likely” that a trail marker is in the middle of a forest when there is no trail on the map and no location clues in the images or supporting?

  • JillJilyJabadoo-PGOJillJilyJabadoo-PGO Posts: 1,082 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Yeah, "likely to exist at that location". A trail marker could be anywhere along that trail. There's nothing that makes it more likely to be at the spot they've chosen than anywhere else within a kilometer walk. If there isn't a photosphere, I take that as evidence it's unlikely to be there since photospheres are easy to make if it really is there.

    I've got first-hand experience with a nature trail where all the signs were misplaced to fill the pokemon cells. It's likely (in fact true!) that the signs exist somewhere in that forest, but they are many meters removed from their actual locations.

    Now, if a supporting photo showed a trail junction, and there was a corresponding junction in the trail shown on a map, then I would 3*. It's likely it exists at that location if the junction matches.

  • flatmatt-PGOflatmatt-PGO Posts: 1,585 ✭✭✭✭✭

    If you have an actual reason to doubt the location is correct, then you are free to rate accordingly. If you have experience with trail markers being misplaced in a particular forest, then that could be a reason for a lower rating. But a 1* on location accuracy is likely close to as much a rejection as a 1* overall.

    Many trails aren't mapped on Google Maps. Requiring mapped trails is unreasonable. And photospheres are just as likely to be misplaced as wayspot submissions.

  • JillJilyJabadoo-PGOJillJilyJabadoo-PGO Posts: 1,082 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited July 2022

    Yes, photospheres can also be misplaced, but with a full 360 degree view, it's easier to tell if a photosphere has been misplaced than a pin where the only visual confirmation you have is "it's in trees somewhere".

    If they're willing to go to the trouble of faking a photosphere that looks believable, they can have a 5* from me for the effort. If they're not willing to spend two minutes making a photosphere for a real stop without any other way to check location, 1*.

    Post edited by JillJilyJabadoo-PGO on
  • Ochemist-INGOchemist-ING Posts: 336 ✭✭✭✭✭

    If there isn't a photosphere, I take that as evidence it's unlikely to be there since photospheres are easy to make if it really is there.

    Not every phone is able to make photospheres, so it's unfair to say that it's easy for everybody. And the location of photospheres is super-easy to fake. I do make photospheres for as many of my wooded submission as possible because I know reviewers like them, but when I review something in the middle of the woods, I typically give it 3* even if there is a photosphere that is likely from the submitter. If there is a nice (usually older) third-party photosphere that shows the submission, then I will likely give it 5* for location.

    [In my area there is somebody who has apparently recently taken it as his mission to generate Google street view for a ton of hiking and biking trails in the region. It's always a treat to get a review for a trail marker or the like that's on a route he's covered.]

  • Quivittoq-PGOQuivittoq-PGO Posts: 8 ✭✭

    Thank you for all your comments.

    I am 'cruising away' with a lot more confidence on my ratings.

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

    I’m still puzzled how ‘no location verification information at all’ comes out to “likely.” That’s a 50% chance at best. It’s a coinflip… more likely than a dice roll or a roulette wheel, but less likely than, like, a nomination that actually uses the supporting image field.

  • Gendgi-PGOGendgi-PGO Posts: 3,279 Ambassador

    Clearly there is dissent among even seasoned reviewers. For what it's worth, it will make more sense over time. Remember that the onus of a good nomination is on the submitter - they must provide the existence it exists. You, as the reviewer, can look for context clues, though. There are times context will make it obvious the candidate is or isn't at the location. If it's obvious the submitter is hiding something, it is often because they are trying to fudge the location.

  • Quivittoq-PGOQuivittoq-PGO Posts: 8 ✭✭

    On location accuracy.

    For me 'likely' (3*) is when the supporting pictures shows ALL the details of the environment AND the wayspot itself relative to Google views, however the object itself is not (yet) visible in Google views. Ie. a playground object that completely matches the topograpy but google view only show a grassy patch that has exactly the dimensions of the playground with EXACTLY the same houses/roads in the background. THAT is 'highly likely' 3* or 4*.

    For me 5* ONLY when the object is also visible in Google views.

    For me 1* when I suspect abuse but cannot prove it.

    For me 2* when I do not suspect abuse but cannot confirm either (ie. a trail marker in a forest that is not in google views)

    I think I slowly get better at reviewing, still 'Fair' though.

    Just had my first contribution accepted. I won't be using (wasting) upgrades on contributions that won't pass my location accuracy standards. Let those go 'automatic' or I have run out of 5* contributions.

  • Melurra-PGOMelurra-PGO Posts: 384 ✭✭✭✭

    There is a case for 5* even without Google Street view or satellite view that I hope you will consider. Sometimes, submitters include a link that is authoritative in the context of the submission, such as a government or park district website for a playground or nature preserve, artist's social media for a mural, or business website for a sculpture in their building. These sources often include the address or another point of reference and therefore serve as location confirmation when Google maps is not up to date. The address of the nomination's pin appears under the main photo in Wayfarer, although it is normal for the address to be a few numbers off, so keep that in mind. (For rural submissions, address may be off by more or may not be a standard street address. So it won't apply to all types of POIs.) They also may include the date that the new POI was opened/installed/built, so that can be compared with the street view date that appears on Wayfarer. If the website's date is more recent than the Wayfarer street view date, that makes sense. If the Wayfarer date it more recent, something is suspicious.

    I often include links the the supplemental info of my nominations when the POI does not yet appear on street view and I can't/don't want to make a Photosphere. Perhaps, if you could find authoritative links for some of your nominations, that would give you the confidence to upgrade them.

    Also, it bears mention to be wary of automatically giving 5* on location just because it appears on street view in Wayfarer. Photospheres can be "faked," meaning they can be uploaded to a mismatched location. When the "street view" goes to a Photosphere, I usually also check satellite view or the real street view, if applicable, for other context clues.

  • Quivittoq-PGOQuivittoq-PGO Posts: 8 ✭✭

    Yes, I use google searches to verify and indeed give it 5* when I find references. I found a great reference on 'Stolpersteine' Mostly when it is something art related I can find references. Checking sometimes takes a very long time. Especially if it is a great wayspot I do not want to give up too soon.

    Currently my (and probably anybody's) big problem is with 'mosaic tiles' used as trail markers or just as artwork. Just about anyone can have such a stone made and put in front of their house on the sidewalk. Or just hijack a tile for a day to make the picture. Forensics about grass bent inside the tile LOL. I literally 'stumbled' on a few real PokemonGo mosaic tiles in a nearby town (that made it as wayspots) and a few days ago go to review EXACTLY the same tile (same grass around it) 100 miles away. Off course the supporting information was the same image as the wayspot picture.

Sign In or Register to comment.