Fake nomination for a survey mark. Several people try this on… AND even if survey mark they are rejection material as common, mass produced, generic, not visually interesting. Often used to abuse the system
Any how. for others to keep an eye out for
Surprised people still try these on, these things are sluice valves not survey markers. Not to mention Niantic already clarified the 50c sized survey markers are also ineligible.
1 Like
Not so much of a fake but the engineering firm survey discs are done for projects as a point of reference. The national level ones are kept in place with concrete.
2 Likes
It’s not unusual to see these coming through as “survey markers” because at a glance they don’t look entirely different from covered NSW Permanent Marks which can have a similar metal trapdoor cover. I think some less informed submitters probably see the existing clusters of SurVey markers and submit Sluice Valves out of ignorance…
However, in this case, it seems like the submitter is aware of the actual purpose of the valve and is attempting to trick reviewers.
6 Likes
Setting aside that the sluice valve / survey marker isn’t eligible, wouldn’t you reject that submission anyway since the second picture doesn’t provide any context for the location - it’s just a repeat of the tightly cropped pic of the proposed waypoint?
Yup good reason. Context of POI in relation to its surroundings to me is a very important factor in accepting a nomination. However it is context to the whole nomination as well. Google Street View, supporting web evidence etc is all part of the story
But yes defo a flag.
@WoodWose I understand what you say. It is interesting However the old NSW Sluice Valves are circular. State Permanent Markers NSW are square lids. HOWEVER PMs in SA can look like an old NSW Sluice V with a round lid. PMs in Queensland often look just like a NSW State Marker nailed to the ground. Lets just say the states make that a mish mash 
All Water Valves I have seen are all very well worked attempts at getting over the line. Often using text very close to the normal State Survery Mark description and supporting information. With one difference. No SSM number Id.
That’s definitely a big red flag, but it’s not a rejection reason on its own.
Sometimes there’s legitimate reasons to use a crop of the same image, mostly to do with photo problems that weren’t apparent at the time of shooting. If submitters can identify the submission and pinpoint it easily with street view anyway then it’s not a big issue to have a reused image, even if it’s not best practice for submitting.
As an example, I submitted something in the middle of a nature area, Emily kept pulling it for the image, so the only way to get it past was to use a crop of my supporting photo that had more colour variation in it. To retake the photos would have been a hike I haven’t had time for again since and would probably have much the same issue anyway as there’s only so much colour tone variation in those natural areas 
As for these, I’ve seen these as well as pretty much any other in-ground access points submitted with all manner of misleading “info” in Australia. Survey markers are our most prolific coal and it only gets worse and spreads to other equally terrible generic junk the longer Niantic let’s it go 
State Survey markers usually are anchored into the ground. They also have a unique number on each one. Each state in Australia also keep a data base with that unique survey number and the longitude and latitude information for mapping services. I thinks some newer wayfarers may not understand the differences with the different covers for the different functions (this is where we can assist people), however having said that I also think there are some real safety issues around some of the Geodetic markers. Some of them being placed in the road or on the gutter so they are in an unsafe place. So I think when reviewing each individual one , it needs to be considered on its individual merits.
1 Like
I think we can split Marks such as SSM from the wider Geodetic marks.
Survey Marks like SSMs exist in many countries. The US is a good example of that.
In Australia most (as in nearly all) of state survey marks are placed as a part of the road infrastructure. In particular the road kerb and gutter. And that is because what they are used for in infrastructure/facility projects. And Niantic has said such a position is dangerous to pedestrians.
Niantic has also listed them (Marks such as SSMs) as non interesting and non visually unique. They are also mass produced with 1,000s added every year with over a million positional marks in existence. The style of mark can be purchased in bags of the hundred - in blank form.
This style of mark is also used for railway marks, in cemateries and by utility companies. That is a flat 2-4 in disk nailed to the ground with numbers or letters on it.
A few survey marks meet the criteria. There are some that have historical interest and heritage listings. And some other styles of Geodetic signs such as Trig stations will often pass. Substantive, much fewer in number and often in an interesting spot (though not all).
But the mass produced, 2- 4 inch disks nailed to the ground build into the road structure do not pass muster. Often used to gain a POI outside a house. Very often used by the mostest mob. I want the most nominations. And also be people who just like to muck the game up 'cause they can.
The historical / heritage marks. Well good though. I saw one for the tank stream. Great Mark. Sadly in the middle of the road. Had that been on a pavement it would have passed. It is the only SSM in Sydney I have seen worthy of a mention.
Now you say usually anchored. There is no usual about SSMs. All State Survery Marks are anchored to the ground generally in concrete and sometimes rock. Some of the other much rarer style of Geodetic marks - may not be. Such as the old Boundary Trees.
I say old that is not fair as under the Surveying and Spatial Regulartion of 2017 provided certain criteria is met - trees can still be used! Now I would pass one of those!!! Subject to the other criteria being met.