Mismatched Location - how would you review this?
Please Note - I am using this Nomination as an example of what I would consider gets a Rejection on the basis of "Mismatched Location". The actual subject of the nomination is fine and I would happily accept this. However, the supporting photo gives me no points of reference and the Satallite view puts it "somewhere" under a solid green canopy of trees.
The "Mismatched Location" information says "Use for nominations that may not exist at the submitted location based on the comparison of the submitted photo and map views", which I think is the case here. I'm pretty sure the nomination does exist, but as far as I can see there is no way to locate it. Perhaps it might be classed as "Likely to exist but is obscured", but I tend to use that for nominations with good supporting information or enough visual clues that I am fairly confident that the object is approximately where the pin is placed.
I've seen lots and lots of Waypoints of this type "accepted", so I was wondering how other people would vote on this one if they saw it.
Thats in mid of a forest, not close to any path. If the paths can get verified, I would definately vote for mismatched location.
Cut & paste from my earlier response about the same topic (different example though).
That is not a
That is literally a
situation. Likely to exist, check. Obscured by the trees, check. Unsure of the real-world location, check.
I would tend to say 3*
Just because the path may not be recognised on Google doesn’t mean it’s not there - without going there is no way of knowing. Rejecting it seems harsh.
Having said that this is an ideal situation where submitter should photosphere.
Was there a "You are Here" indicator on the map ? It could give an indication of whether the pin is in the correct approximate location.
You are absolutely voting wrong on this. When trees obscure the view, there will never be a way to verify the location unless you are at the site. It is clearly not the intention of Niantic for us to personally visit each nominated POI. They have told us to vote 3 star when we aren't certain, but it is likely to be where the submitter says. The only time I would be more harsh than that is when the tree cover might obscure a home location. This is clearly not an attempt at a home stop because it is in the middle of the woods.
I think the decision between the two choices is whether the submission could credibly exist at the location.
If it's a marker for a trail, but the actual trail is nowhere nearby, then I would 1*/location mismatch it. if the submission is obviously in the middle of a field but the pin is under heavy tree cover then I would 1*/location mismatch it. If for example it's on a trail and near a stream, and you can tell from the map that the pin is reasonably close to a trail and a stream then I would 3* the location.
You can see a path on the picture, also a barrier (which reminds me of the German entrances to forests). both would not fit to the location of the pin. For me, this is a 1*. The posibility of the POI being on this location is too small for me. But I am normally more on 1* then on 3*. But thats my personal reviewing style.
I lean towards this sort of view. On the photo, you can see 3 other existing Waypoints which all seem to be on the route of paths through the site. If theye were nominations , I would look on those nominations more favorably with regards to a location provided the supporting photos were good and showed the position of the POI in relation to the footpath - 3* location would be my most likely vote for something there.
agree. Those have a high posibility for being correct. This one is rather totally misplaced or just wrong. I'd let the submitter resubmit it. It might be placed there just to edit it later but still ger for example a new gym in the s2 cell.
Sorry, accidental double click. Post with screenshots in moderation.
Absolutely a 3*. LukeAllStars clearly has ever gone on a hiking trail. "Thats in mid of a forest, not close to any path." They're usually in forests! If your only reason to doubt location is "Well, this trail is in a forest, and I can't verify the marker because the drop point is in a forest," the you really don't have a good reason to doubt it. Solid 3*.
Google Maps is not, at least around here, good for showing smaller paths and trails. But if one checks the area from OpenStreetMap, the trails and border of the nature reserve area are clearly marked.
The pin is placed about here.
You are making stuff up. I see no barrier in the satellite image. I see A path but that doesn't mean it's the only path in that area. How you think you know more about the details of a wooded forest than the submitter is mind-blowing to me.
I used to live round there and have walked up Coopers Hill many times. There is a good quality path through the middle of the wood, roughly where the pin is but totally agree that it's not fair to expect people to know that. It can only be a "do you trust the submitter" "gut feeling" job without a Photosphere.
Niantic has never once told us that we need to do photospheres to prove a POI's location. That is all stuff that we have added to the process ON OUR OWN. Go back to the basics of how Niantic has told us to judge it - 3* if it is likely to be there but you can't be certain due to things like tree cover on satellite. They have LITERALLY given us the guide for how to handle that but some people want to add more rules to the process.
I would happily agree a Photosphere has never been a requirement to prove a POIs location, though in situations like the woodland it can help a lot. Niantic have provided a guide on how to assess and rate the location of a POI, which includes the two following bits of advice:
My intent when starting this thread was to try to understand which of these to use and when, and where people consider the cut-off / change point between the two. Being "obscured by trees" should not be taken to mean all nominations under tree cover get an automatic 3* score if there is absolutely no indication of there the POI is located for several 100m in any direction from the pin. I will do my best to see if I can find any location evidence in a submission, but there are a lot of them where after doing my best, all i can say is I can't find any evidence on the nomination anywhere on the map", so I give it 1*. I still don't think there is a concensus appearing in this thread for a specific example as shown in the OP.
Why do you think that POI is not likely to exist where the submitter says it is? That's the issue. You don't trust the submitter. Niantic has never encouraged us to be that suspicious of our fellow trainers.
Perhaps because I want to be sure the Waypoint is at least somewhere nearby, and because I have seen too many fake nominations or waypoint submissions delberately misplaced to make couch portals or avoid the "full" S17 square thay should go in and the like. Niantic are keen for exploration, I don't want to go exploring only to find the Waypoint does not exist.
I agree. Around here, those maps show some paths that are no longer paths, if they ever were paths, and don't show some that are absolutely there. I think some people put too much importance in what Google Maps because they'd drunk the Google Flavoraid, even when the streetview is years out of date. When the typical submitter doesn't know ANYTHING about what gets approved or not, and so they're less likely to lie. They're also less likely to have any clue that the people who review the most now expect things like photospheres and links to outside supporting information to prove something that the submitter is standing in front of is real to begin with.
What next, video? Thanks to some of the people in this forum who clearly don't have hobbies aside from sitting there passing judgement on the submissions of casual players, I'm actually considering making a video now because one of my submissions isn't visible on the streetview because it was on a different side of a tree where it was overgrown with pricker bushes, but is now permanently staked on the other side. I'm actually considering a video showing something to prove the date, then showing me trying to KICK IT OVER to show that it's not movable anymore, and to show the area, and upload it to YouTube. There are some trails I was planning to travel an hour to get to to submit them, but have decided not to since they're not on Google Maps, and I don't want to waste my time. It's pathetic, really, to go about reviewing with the mindset that people are lying about their submissions in areas the reviewer doesn't live in, and to require pretty extreme proof because the reviewer has a god-complex and see Google Streetview and Satellite as their infallible bible.
Say it again louder for those in the back. Unless a submission is OBVIOUSLY a fake, I think we need to err on the side of trusting people who live in areas where we don't. Rejecting what even up being valid locations because reviewers presume submitters are lying due to a lack of extreme evidence to show an out-of-date streetview map is incorrect (how many of them know that streetview is pulled up at all?), or a satellite map that doesn't show all trails, etc., will get people to stop submitting. Frankly, I'm more likely to distrust people who make it clear that they know the rules since they're the ones who will know how to game the system while the casual submitter is less likely to know what jaded reviewers see in the first place. I saw someone suggest printing a fake mural for a utility box for a submission...IN THIS FORUM. That fake submission will probably pass while legit ones get rejected because those in the know can, and WILL, game the system.
Trust the submitters unless there's clear and obvious reason not to.
The difference between
"1 star if the Wayspot nomination cannot be found on the map"
"3 stars if the Wayspot nomination is likely to exist in the real-world location if obscured by trees"
is the word "likely". Niantic are asking if we think there is greater than 50% chance that it's in the location given by the submitter. This is a value judgment, there are no hard and fast rules. Personally, I'd weigh up the fact that this looks like a map and info sign that would make more sense at an entrance to the nature reserve than in the middle against the way that there's not much to gain by faking it being in this location, and I'd probably give this one 3*... but I'd defend someone else's right to 1* it, we're being asked for a judgement call.
It took me less than minute to check that the nature reserve area border goes through the forest area. On mobile device, without being able to cut & paste "Coopers Hill local nature reserve" from the nomination
There is no reasonable reason to suspect that the nominator is lying.
I think @52cucumbers-ING summed my position quite well in the earlier discussion about the same topic.
What’s clear here is that there is no general consensus. Personally I would 3* but I do understand the logic of those who 1*.
I would like to reiterate though, as a submitter for stuff like this you should photosphere. It isn’t in the criteria that they have to, that’s true, but a lot of things aren’t (such as URLs) yet we do them to help reviewers. Why would you not do everything you can to help get a nomination approved? A judgement call of about should it be 1* should it be 3* turns into 5* because you can see it is within 2ft of the photosphere.
@NianticCasey-ING @NianticEG @NianticGiffard @NianticAaron can one of you please clarify how you would review in such situations? It would be helpful to many I think.
Hi folks! If you're not able to view the Wayspot candidate in maps/street views or if the real-world location or the nomination is inside a park or under a tree, like in this case, you should use your best judgment to decide whether the candidate could exist at the real-world location. You can also use the submission photo and look for clues in the background to help you decide.
You can rate 3 stars if the Wayspot candidate is likely to exist in the real-world location, if obscured by trees, or if you are unsure of the real-world location. You should rate 1 star if the Wayspot nomination cannot possibly exist at the location. Hope this helps!
In doubt, please follow your nose. Something wise someone white said once.
@LukeAllStars-PGO you should get out into the woods more often. i can accompany you and show you the trees.
Yeah possible. Im living in a big city, that could be the problem xD
"1 star if the Wayspot nomination cannot possibly exist at the location." is very different to "1 star if the Wayspot nomination cannot be found on the map".
Which is correct, @NianticAndres ? If it's the first one then the text in wayfarer needs to be changed to say that too.
single submissions somewhere in the woods I would trust to give them 3* .....
But your statement cant be generalized. Our country has lots or regions, where nearly evry submission is a fake. Lots of photoshop, Do-it-yourself educational trails, stolen pictures from somewhere else, etc.pp.
Our workaround is a giant list of towns, pinned in our social media groups.
Reviewing 10 candidates in Germany is something like: 2x playground, 5x stone/tree/couch, 1x waycross, 2x very obvious fakes ..... and the fakes get accepted in the most cases. Totally frustrating. For example look at this:
That's daily business here.... so we simply dont need for a statements by Niantic to be in general doubt. I simply don't know how many fakes there are, that even trick me .... so I'm very fast with my mismatched-location-finger ...
I picked up on this change of wording as well. "Cannot possibly exist at the location" is a very very different assessment criteria than "Wayspot nomination cannot be found on the map". If taken to the extreme, as I'm sure it will be by someone, then it moves the requirements a long way towards being unable to reject any nomination "because it could (could) possibly exist there - you have no proof it does not". Which is correct please, @NianticAndres ? Is this now the new "Niantic Official" position on waypoint location? If it is then it needs to have the definitions updated in the next AMA and all the assessment criteria on the review pages and help screen updated.
Going back to the original intent of this thread, it seems to be drifting towards the almost inevitable argument between the "more waypoints / accept everything / why are you trying to spoil the game for everybody" views and those who take a more subjective or perhaps criteria led view of submissions.
Nowhere in the OP did I suggest that the person submitting the nomination was lying or faking a waypoint location. What I was interested in was how other reviewers would handle this if they were asked to review the same Waypoint, purely from the point of trying to improve my own ratings scores. At what point does "1* - unable to locate the POI" come into play? Unfortunately, the comments from Niantic have possibly muddied the waters even more as a result, though the gist of the posting from NianticAndres was a repeat of the existing text, with one major chage.
Hi @Rostwold-ING and @sogNinjaman-ING, that response from @NianticAndres was for this particular question and should not be generalised. In a scenario wherein the object is obscured by trees and the correct location can not be verified, you should use your best judgment to decide whether the candidate could exist at the real-world location. And, if the object possibly can not exist at the location, you should rate it 1 star.