Here is another fake to check against

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

3 Likes

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.

5 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 :wink:

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 :woman_shrugging:

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 :woman_facepalming:
rakes-1622016765

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