To my shame, I get frustrated by wayspot submissions where the supporting photo doesn’t show the object and cannot be matched up with the main photo.
I know the narrative that people are shown is unhelpful in this regard (“submit an additional photo of the area surrounding your nomination” doesn’t tell people that it is extremely helpful to include the nomination in that photo), and I put up with this when I can confirm the wayspot does actually exist there, but when there is no other evidence (streetview, photospheres, linked websites), I nearly always tag as Inaccurate Location.
(Leaving aside obviously fake wayspots where the supporting photo doesn’t include them deliberately.)
Am I being reasonable?
1 Like
i would have to evaluate each nomination on its own merits.i wouldn’t reject just because i don’t think the supporting photo is a helpful one, but it can be a major red flag if they don’t show the poi in it.
3 Likes
Well, assuming that the proposed wayspot isn’t visible from StreetView, a photosphere or some other way to verify the location then the supporting photo is key. In this case, if the supporting photo doesn’t show the proposed wayspot then it’s a good reason for rejection IMO.
Here is one I rejected because the supporting photo did not show the poi in the main and it didn’t show on street view. I strongly suspect this photo was taken elsewhere and pinned here.
That marker with its notched side and the pattern of growth on the tree almost exactly matches an existing Wayspot in a different location.
Elderly man voice: “I remember a time when we didn’t have supporting photos…”
But yeah, I’ll often scrutinise a nomination more when it doesn’t have the nomination in supporting photo.
1 Like
I wouldn’t be comfortable tagging a submission as an “Inaccurate Location” if I cannot verify that the location is inaccurate.
When I encounter a location that I cannot verify the accuracy of, I select “I don’t know” and note that I cannot verify if the location is accurate or not. I only state a location is inaccurate if I can verify that the location is inaccurate.
I do understand where you’re coming from: a poor supporting image can make it harder to verify a site’s location.
1 Like
Agree with this. I rejected the example shown for a different reason. I have to be certain that it can’t be where it is pinned before using that rejection reason.
To me it’s not so much “do I have a visceral reaction to the person not following the [not very clearly spelled out in the game nomination interface] rules and review differently because of that”, it’s “can the location be confirmed with the information provided”. Much less emphasis will be placed on the supporting photo in situations where it is possible to confirm through other means such as Street View/satellite. Or maybe I use a local high-resolution satellite map and this helps me confirm location regardless of the unhelpful supporting photo. In other situations, the supporting photo is really the one thing that can make or break the nomination and it’s extremely important to take a good one.
Does a bad one make something directly ineligible? Not at all. Did the submitter potentially waste an opportunity to make a good case for their location accuracy? Possibly. It’s very case-to-case 
1 Like
Very much my view as well. It’s a case by case basis, and I will use everything I can to try and locate the POI. Yes, not everyone likes to do the research, but sometimes it is something we do have to do.
How about this one. We have an LFL that might be on public land - there is disagreement over how to treat this. There is no street view. The supporting photo doesn’t show the nominated object.
In this example it’s the main photo that shows this object to be misplaced. Look at the sidewalk and background. Seeing the satellite view, it’s possibly across the street along the sidewalk, and maybe near the other POI, but the supporting photo is unhelpful.
This is just an AI generated fake - I don’t think the land shown has anything to do with the real public land on-site
I’ll play the old person card here. And I can be a cynic too often. The photo seems a bit “off” (?) but what made you conclude right away it’s an AI fake? What did I not see? (although now I’m looking at those book spines… but not enough resolution for my eyes)
I did reject this one for inaccurate location.
1 Like
the existing wayspot next to this is also an AI generated fake.
@NianticAaron can you please take a look?
2 Likes
Not enough resolution for anyone’s eyes, but zooming in on a monitor, the spines and covers have no words on them.
I think there’s a clear difference between supporting photos that are blatantly and deliberately not including the nomination such as the one @jojenreed64 posted, which are automatic rejections for me, and ones where the nominator just didn’t bother to help themselves.
There’s a limit to how long I’m willing to spend trying to see if a wayspot might actually exist - and be roughly where it has been placed - when the nominator couldn’t think for themselves that they need to provide evidence.
Oh nice find, Bing has some pretty good imagery of that location.. 35.271445,-80.745448 - Bing Maps
1 Like
I have taken necessary action on the submission, Wayspot and the submitter in question.
7 Likes
