I recently read the discussion in the thread below, which raised an interesting question about how third-party images are handled in Wayspot enforcement:
Rather than revisiting the details of that specific case, I would like to use it as a starting point for a broader discussion.
From that thread, it appears that even when a Wayspot is confirmed to have been submitted using a third-party image, the Wayspot itself may remain in the game if it otherwise meets eligibility criteria, with the image issue treated separately. As a reviewer, I find this outcome a bit difficult to reconcile with how submission rules are communicated. Third-party images are clearly disallowed, yet the resulting Wayspot can remain valid once accepted.
Is the use of a third-party image considered primarily a submitter-level violation rather than a Wayspot-level issue? Is photo replacement generally the preferred solution over removal? I would appreciate hearing not only from the Wayfarer team, but also from other reviewers.
Previously, if there were issues with imagesâsuch as third-party contentâthey would be removed. If no other images were available, the Wayspot image would remain blank. However, Wayspots that lose their images attract different types of abuse. To prevent this, even images with serious problems are likely left as-is.
Reviewers who notice the problem can visit the location themselves if itâs nearby and submit a new image. But if itâs hours away, thatâs impossible. I certainly wonât go out of my way just for that.
Therefore, I believe the Wayspot itself should be decisively removed. Even if the object or location itself meets the acceptance criteria, since there was a problem with the submission process, the Wayspot itself should be removed and forced to start over from the beginning.
I think if something was accepted due to being submitted inaccurately or with fake or 3rd party images, it should be removed. Thatâs because the evidence provided to persuade reviewers was incorrect, so it was falsely accepted.
Someone else can always submit it properly.it doesnât block it from becoming a PoI, so if someone else can take good pictures and submit it accurately then it could be accepted that time.
Agree that the waypoint should be removed but if Niantic are refusing to do this they should be able to remove the image and replace with a generic âNiantic Logoâ with âNew Image Requiredâ written on it.
Personally, Iâd like to have a multifaceted approach with this.
IMO give newbies and one-off offenders time to correct their mistake. When corrected, the wayspots stays if eligible. If not corrected, the warning/ban is applied and the wayspot is removed. On both cases, the contribution is listed as not accepted citing third-party photo and the offending image is removed. This amplifies a learning experience that has actionable resolutions and consequences (Hello âeducationalâ emails).
Decisive and immediate removals reserved for the serial offenders.
I think 3ppp is complex and has different aspects.
As a reviewer it is always frustrating when you have a good potential object/location ruined by something like a 3rd party photo. But there is a simple reject, and it should be possible for that to generate an easy to understand and learn from piece of feedback. The submitter needs to learn.
I would like there to be stronger auto reject to save me having to try and spot as a reviewer.
An improvement in the system to catch more before a reviewer sees it. We are not provided with tools to help check. When doing location check street view often allows a match. But beyond that we arenât provided with a simple means.
So it is not surprising some get through, but improvements to keep those down will help.
And we do get cases of people showing us their own photo that has ended up being viewed as 3ppp. These situations end up with a submitter being frustrated and to them it makes no sense.
The issue of what actions get taken when you have a live wayspot with 3 ppp has become like a mass of logic spaghetti. It needs unravelling.
In my main job with a large university we had long detailed manuals of office procedures (MOP) these were to cover admin tasks and the application of rules. All with intention of ensuring a consistent approach to our students - fairness. And most of the time it was fine but now and then MOPs became bloated and contradictory. This lead to stress for those applying them, for people like me saying this is daft, and for the student. Everyone trying to do the right thing but it ending up a stressful mess, that felt unfair.
Stress is just wasteful of resources, but itâs a symptom that something is not working well. Itâs a pain point, and so needs treatment. You donât want to jump in fiddle with a bit of it as that could make it unintentionally worse - first do no harm. Frustrating though it is you need to take time to unpick and put it all back together. My experience is this needs a place within it for common sense and judgement and not always the safety of hard rules, from the point of submission onwards - some flexibility.
At the heart of that the end goal should be a system that works for everyone involved, is clear to understand and has clear outcomes.
My personal opinion is the Wayspot should be removed unless there is an alternate photo present.
I am surprised that Nianticâs legal team hasnât had input here. Content which is being owned by a third-party is being used by Niantic for profit without any renumeration or attribution for the copyright holder.
It is against the Terms of Service.
If the Wayspot was eligible, then someone else can submit it with a genuine photo.
When I report live Wayspots with third party photos, Niantic asks me to supply a new photo instead of removing them. I usually canât. This policy benefits abusers who canât submit a photo they actually took because they have never actually been there. If it wasnât acceptable, then why is it allowed to stay on the map?
The submitter needs to learn. 
