Repeated suspicious nominations in Rüdersdorf - possible AI-generated or manipulated images

[tamebu]

Hi everyone,

I would like to draw attention to a series of suspicious Wayspot nominations I have repeatedly encountered while reviewing in Rüdersdorf, Brandenburg. Since staff members also read this forum, I hope the Wayfarer team might be able to take a closer look at these nominations as a whole.

My concern started with a nomination in Rüdersdorf that used two photographs I had taken myself for one of my own Wayspot nominations in Berlin. Both of my photos had been copied and reused for a completely different location. I reported that case through Wayfarer Support.

Since then, I have repeatedly encountered further suspicious nominations from the same relatively small area.

One previous example showed a horse artwork. The horse in the main photo and the horse in the supporting photo differed noticeably in their actual design. Even taking different perspectives into account, they did not appear to show the same artwork.

The most recent and particularly striking example is a nomination called “Wandbild Fische am Wegesrand”.

At first glance, the two photos look convincing because the garage block and the surrounding environment appear consistent. However, when the mural itself is compared closely, there are numerous differences between the main and supporting photos:

• the clownfish differs in shape and pattern,
• the small school of fish is arranged differently,
• the angelfish differs in shape and markings,
• the two orange fish are different,
• the central treasure chest or similar object changes considerably,
• and several plants and rocks do not match.

These are not simply differences caused by perspective, distance or image compression. The surrounding real-world scene remains largely consistent, while parts of the actual nominated artwork change between the two photographs.

I have now also encountered several additional nominations nearby, including a bear on a utility cabinet, a landscape scene on another cabinet and an astronaut mural.

In my view, some of these images show visual characteristics that make me suspect AI generation or substantial digital manipulation. During review, I therefore marked them as inaccurate and stated in the comments that I suspected the images might be AI-generated.

Another recurring detail is the supporting information. Several of these nominations include the identical sentence:

“Achtung: Google Maps ist auf dem Stand 2022.”
(“Please note: Google Maps is from 2022.”)

This appears to be intended to explain why the submitted objects or artworks are not visible in the available Google imagery.

There is, of course, nothing unusual in itself about a new artwork not appearing in older imagery. What concerns me is therefore the recurring combination of:

• photographs demonstrably copied from an unrelated Wayspot nomination at another location,
• nominations where the main and supporting photos appear to show different versions of the alleged artwork,
• further images that appear to be AI-generated or digitally manipulated,
• and the repeated statement that the objects cannot be verified in the available Google imagery because it dates from 2022.

I am not claiming that every one of these observations proves manipulation on its own. However, taken together, I believe the pattern warrants a closer look.

I am sharing this here because other reviewers may encounter the same or similar nominations. If you do, I would recommend comparing the main and supporting photos particularly carefully rather than relying only on the overall appearance of the scene.

If anyone else has encountered nominations from this area showing similar inconsistencies, I would also be interested to know.

[salixsorbus]

When two photos of the same mural have differences like these (the horse), this is sufficient to say that the murals were created by “AI”. Superficially, these are the same mural, but once you look closely, you can see the differences.

The same holds for the fish mural.

Either of these is sufficient to flag everything from that submitter for investigation.

Over time, the algorithms will get better and they will eventually be able to create matching photos, but for now, Scopely Explore are able to see the problem. Hopefully they take action.

[afroninja243]

It seems only one has made the wayfarer map (unless you’re willing to share the location of the horse/fish), hopefully the rest have been rejected, but its one of the more egregious of the bunch.
Ein Bär am Wegesrand

52.507748,13.855699
AI detector thinks its extremely likely to be edited

Not only that, but the image they used to edit is very likely third-party, owned by Google.
You can overlay it directly over street view and the perspective lines up, so unless they stood in the middle of the street with their camera over their heads and lined it up perfectly to recreate the shot, Scopely likely does not have permission to use this edited version of Google’s property.

[ScopelyExpAaron]

Hello @tamebu ,

Thanks for the report. We’ve reviewed the Wayspot submissions, and taken appropriate action as per our policies. While we are unable to discuss our actions in detail to protect the submitter/reviewer’s privacy, they may include, but are not limited to, sending a warning message, placing restrictions on their Wayfarer or Pokémon GO, putting their account on probation, or placing a temporary or permanent suspension on their Wayfarer or Pokémon GO accounts.

Thanks for helping us maintain the quality of the Scopely Explore Wayspots.

Regards,