New AI feature has created inappropriate ‘Plaque’ portals

TLDR, the new AI to help assist and speed up the review process has resulted in many inappropriate plaques becoming portals. This needs to be discussed and fixed.

Context & background:

My understanding is the review process has recently become more sophisticated to help reduce the review time, which has been particularly helpful for rural areas. This is obviously great. Now submitted stops under certain tags (like cafes, Fish & Chip shops and plaques) are more likely to be accepted.

I have noticed an increase in submissions for generic plaques. Including those on park benches that only contain personal information of a non public figure or historical event of significance. I’m talking about plaques that just display details of someone’s former relative and their years of being alive, often with a message like “In loving memory / enjoy the view!”. My understanding of the current criteria is these stops are not appropriate. They should be rejected for containing personal information of a non public figure. Ultimately they are not interesting Wayspots either, and a little tasteless.

I believe the current system is failing to differentiate the quality of the submissions. Obviously some plaques on benches are good Wayspots, perhaps they commemorate a Jubilee of a monarch or something relevant.

The rate of which I’m seeing these inappropriate portals appear in my area of Southern England is now verging on spamming. This itself is another issue. There are so many memorial plaques of no significance they become generic by default. Most public spaces in England can easily have several of these plaques spread across a single pathway.

1 Like

Memorial benches are submitted all the time, and there are many that already have Wayspots that were approved by the community or through appeals; memorial trees are similar to these as well. As of late, I’ve been getting many memorial benches to review along a greenway walking path, but I have yet to see any approved, mainly because the submitter didn’t even take good photos and it’s hard to determine if the location is accurate just from satellite view (no Street View is available) and supporting photo.

It’s possible that because of there are ones already approved, ML/AI sees them as eligible, as they can be a place to socialize, and many times are along paths for exercise. I find the trees as being harder to approve, as even if they are along a walking path, I just can’t imagine many stopping to look at the plaque. Some may notice the plaque on benches when sitting on them, but again, how often?

Now, I don’t know what the criteria is for the personal information on these benches/trees for those they honor, but most of the people just lived in the community, and the family may have purchased the bench/tree to be placed in a public place, like a park, to remember them. The person that they are named after usually are not buried there, so it’s not like a grave with a tombstone, which are ineligible.

The criteria for these memorial items with plaques seem to be mixed, with some seeing them as eligible, other not. I believe that the ambos are working on providing more criteria clarifications, and I wouldn’t be surprised that these items are on their list.

1 Like

I agree with a lot of that DTrain.

There are also several plaques on benches I deem ‘uninteresting’ and un-unique in my local town for years. From my perspective they slipped through the net. Similar to a few scout huts that should be rejected for K-12. It’s what the harsh report button is for.

This highlights my main issue. Some plaques, even if on a bench, could be acceptable based on their content. WWII memorial benches are an infamous one in England. They have an interesting design and often reference unique events. There’s also rare benches that commemorate a public (famous) figure. There can’t be a blanket amendment for all plaques meeting or failing criteria.

However, plaques bought by relatives are very personal to them. They are very common in England. I feel like the gates have been opened so to speak, and the frequency of submissions has increased from my experience. I feel like the criteria can be clearly defined here. There are so many of them that if more follow, they become even more generic and uninteresting.

I can see this being less of an issue in other countries and rural areas which is probably what the recently amended system was designed to help. I appreciate the difficulty designing a system that works well everywhere.

1 Like

I agree with much of what has already been said. However, there are some memorial benches that most would think uninteresting. Perhaps it is just a name and a caption, but if you knew the history of that person it could be interesting. Not just historically significant, but having an impact on the community.
“A local community member” is basic and plain. It doesn’t tell you anything. I have nominated benches, although still in queue or voting, for people who had a big impact in their community and/or have larger roles in life. Could be a veteran or a UN Activist, or someone who played a role in cultural awareness and sensitivity. I include this in the description.
They may still be rejected, but others still accept the basic plaques as they are along walking paths or trails. To be honest, just walking an extra 0.5km to the next bench is good exercise. The games get people out to play.
I have removed a lot of wayspots with plaques because they were removed. With some unhappy players :upside_down_face:
Sometimes that happens.