The leaves under it indicate it's not placed for the photo (clearly someone doing groundskeeping ignored the area because the benches were in the way).
This. I get waypoints that are visible on 10 year old Google maps rejected because they are 'temporary'. Looking for signs like moss, algae, leaves etc is a good thing to do in order to make a valid assessment. Not every thing that could theoretically be moved is necessarily a cheat attempt.
For the record, I rejected it as a mass produced object with no other redeeming features outside a coat of paint, not because it might or might not have been moved there. It's not a cheat but it is, as we say in my neck of the woods, fishing with an empty hook.
The leaves under it indicate it's not placed for the photo (clearly someone doing groundskeeping ignored the area because the benches were in the way).
This. I get waypoints that are visible on 10 year old Google maps rejected because they are 'temporary'. Looking for signs like moss, algae, leaves etc is a good thing to do in order to make a valid assessment. Not every thing that could theoretically be moved is necessarily a cheat attempt.
For the record, I rejected it as a mass produced object with no other redeeming features outside a coat of paint, not because it might or might not have been moved there. It's not a cheat but it is, as we say in my neck of the woods, fishing with an empty hook.
Yeah, totally agreed there, it's not a high quality stop. Would probably have done the same myself.
[deleted]