I think I have some interesting stuff for you: How would you review that?

Nomination Support
1

IMG_4260
IMG_42601179×2556 397 KB

IMG_4261
IMG_42611179×2556 298 KB

Hello everyone,

I would like to hear your opinion on a local community gardening project in my village and whether you would consider its markers to be eligible Wayspot candidates.

For several years, our village has had a public “garden sponsor” project. Residents can voluntarily maintain and decorate flower beds located in public spaces. Many of these beds contain decorative elements, painted stones, and in some cases permanent artistic objects. Some of those artistic features have already been accepted as Wayspots.

Each flower bed also has a small inscribed stone identifying the sponsor of that particular bed. These stones usually contain only the sponsor’s name and may appear rather simple at first glance. However, they have been in place for years, remain at fixed locations, and have become an established part of both the project and the local streetscape.

Several nominations of these marker stones were automatically rejected. My assumption is that the machine learning system may simply interpret them as loose or temporary stones and therefore does not recognize the broader context of the community project.

I would be interested in hearing how other reviewers would approach this:

  • Would you consider these stones to be permanent markers of a community project, or simply decorative name stones?
  • Do you see any connection to the “Explore” criterion because they help people discover and understand a local community initiative?
  • How important is the fact that these markers are part of an established long-term project?
  • Would the simplicity of the stones themselves make them unsuitable, regardless of the project’s significance?

I understand that these markers do not look like traditional information signs or official plaques. However, I personally view them as permanent identifiers of a long-standing local community project that has become part of the village’s identity.

If you consider these markers as good wayspot material: What do you think how these can get past the ML?

I would appreciate any thoughts on how you would review such nominations.

2

In my opinion, I would reject such a Wayspot immediately, as it meets the following rejection criteria:

Ineligible photo

Photo includes one or more of emojis, tags, or personally identifiable information such as codenames, personal names or initials, or addresses; copyrighted material or watermarks, including screenshots of someone else’s photo; is obviously doctored; includes people, body parts, or live animals as the subject matter; is blurry, over/under exposed, taken inside a car, contains a watermark, or is improperly oriented.

3

Ok thank you you’re right. Thank you for the criteria clarification. I thought this would be ok if it’s an offical project, because the persons are fine with standing in public with their project. Now I’m smarter.

4

While I agree that these signs are visible to the public, I also believe that it makes a difference whether a passer-by from the local area reads the name or whether the image is uploaded to a global database.

5

yeah, I wish these signs would be more offical and seem less private with full namens. I would love to make every community garden plot a wayspot. I already made 2 permanent art objects a wayspot but it would be cool if there was a way to make the whole project a wayspot. The tree pads themselves are mostly too generic without a better sign, thats a pity.

6

Reject immediately. I don’t even like these when they have official/permanent looking signs. They simply aren’t distinct

7

I wouln’t say not distinct. With this argumentation you could’nt accept every waymarker of walking routes

I would rather go with the argumentation of @jjkabels that this is too much personal information on a too less official sign to be in a global database.

I think it’s a difference if some sign like this marks a simple green area or a real gardening project. I was submitting the project, not the sign