Sometimes in my review spurts I come across a wayspot nomination that is clearly AI generated. I always report as a fake nomination because, well, it is a fake nomination, but my rule of thumb is to always peek at the nearby wayspots to see if they may also be AI generated. Usually it is a ‘No’ and I carry on, but sometimes I come across a treasure trove of clearly AI generated images. But, never have I ever come across a location that has AI generated images, photoshopped images, and duplicate wayspots all within very clearly industrial grounds.
Viewer discretion is advised (not really, it’s just a bunch of reportable wayspots):
42M6+X2 Longview, WA, USA
heres a picture of a beautiful stork neck that is very real and not fake
Ah yes, perfect studio lighting on a sign posted on logs with two different orientations and wood types among a field of very real grass
Love to look at the water basins for these two very distinct and not exactly the same pictures!
Cant wait to gaze upon this real monument made of real materials thats placed in this real field of real grass
And don’t forget to remember about resilience! placed very strategically on the very large open field that this property clearly has
Of course, there are plenty more like these ones here. just take a look at how ‘open to nature’ this industrial plant is
You found it too! I came across one of the "observation platforms " in review last week. I reported many of them for unsafe and got them removed but was having trouble verifying anything else. The submitter writes really fancy misleading descriptions and there is no streetview to verify because again, INDUSTRIAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT. Have you made an abuse report for the AI waypoints yet?
I have! Went through each of them in the plant and the surrounding area to search for fake ones and report them. AI pictures have no right to be on this platform. I HATE AI pictures that masquerade as something that could be real. AI tech wasn’t made to give players in geocaching games an advantage, its a complete spit in the face to those that made this tech possible.
Did you see this? It was at the center of this industrial area Tuesday. Longview paper mill disaster could be ‘deadliest industrial tragedy in modern Washington state history,’ governor says - OPB &utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=national_highlight&utm_content=homepage
oh thats absolutely terrible news 
sounds like the rescue operations are getting people out, but its always so bitter when there are casualties too. I do appreciate the community response in that article though, seems like a good community to be a part of.
Respect to all those out there working at plants like this one, I sit on a computer all day with the only threat being shocking myself on the light switch from static buildup and meanwhile these people work alongside actual life-threatening possibilities and stuff that can require decontamination periods if exposed to.
I gotta be on the lookout. Didn’t really consider that people would stoop that low for another stop. Isn’t the whole point of this to highlight interesting/important places?
For some people, yes
However, there are definitely people who just want more pokestops and gyms. This has always been the case.
I hope that the ML can be trained to evaluate images for AI generation in future which could help with this kind of abuse.
I do feel quite strongly that if someone fully fakes a nomination in this manner, it should be a ban. They know what they are doing, they know its wrong, and they do not care.
Ive even seen a bunch of nominations with completely real pictures, but instead of getting a new angle for the supporting pic, they AI generate one at a different angle. I always report those ones, same with ones that have an AI generated supporting info or description.
common supporting info AI red flag:
“It’s not just a [universal term] — it’s a [criteria specific term].”
example - “It’s not just a community board — it’s a valuable social hub that represents and reflects the community’s core values!” ← i did not use AI to write this btw
Um, reporting all AI text is a bit extreme. I completely agree this kind of writing is extremely aggravating, and I agree it often comes with other problems with the nomination, but unless it is otherwise fake, misleading, butchered to the point of not being understandable or if the AI made information up, it doesn’t warrant a report. I would therefore not generalize like that. There is no such rule.
Oh, I read their message as reporting where the supporting photo was AI generated. Missed the 2nd part. I also wouldn’t reject for AI text unless it was bad
I initially read it that way. On re-reading, @McNugNug said they report for computer generated photos and will also report for computer generated text.
yeaaaaah, fair point. maybe i just have a vendetta about AI text because it feels like the submitter doesn’t believe in the value of the nom nor that effort is worth it and instead just wants more wayspots. It technically is slightly more effort to ask AI to generate supporting text for a community board than to just put “community board” for the description and supporting text. Still not a fan, but i’ll be less critical of it for sure.
I agree with you that AI generated text makes a nomination look like they don’t have faith in it in the first place.
But if the text is correct then I will not Reject it for that, it may make me look deeper in to the nomination “Am I sure the photo isn’t AI as well”.
If AI has put in text that isn’t true then I agree that a Reject is justified.
Good Luck.
