While its true that posting photos on the internet inherently probably gives away your location (as there are sleuths out there that probably could figure out what street JonathanDark is on just from the picture he posted) I worry the only way to properly enforce this would be to reveal where each photo was taken which people might not be comfortable with

It can be resolved privately, I suppose; if I message pokes and say “my snap was taken here” then he can validate whether it was in range of his or not.

Hm, that might run afoul of “No Collaboration” unless we specifically add a rule to allow confirmation of a location between Seekers. Something like this:

A Snap that was taken within 100m of another Snap taken by a different Seeker, provided that the other Seeker posts a comment in the Upgrade Request confirming that this criteria was met. It does not violate the No Collaboration Building Block if the two Seekers involved privately communicate about the confirmation of this Upgrade Benchmark.

No Collaboration isn’t on.

Oops, sorry. “No Cooperation” is what I meant. Search-and-Replace my previous comment.

I assumed the intention of the original rule was that the second photo would plainly be of more or less the same view as the first, enough that a voter looking at the two images would believe it without any persuasion.

“No Cooperation” possibly also applies to working with other humans to get photos taken in the first place.

I think confirming a statement of fact stretches the definition of “cooperation”, for me, in a way that cuts to the distinction between no cooperation and the old no communication rule. I did think that the rule only restricted cooperation with other Seekers but I accept that it is ambiguous

So what we have now is “A Snap that was taken in the same place as another Snap taken by a different Seeker” and this Proposal is replacing it with “A Snap that was taken within 100m of another Snap taken by a different Seeker”. In my mind, this isn’t making the location confirmation issue any worse, and it’s at least narrowing down “same place”. Not enacting this Proposal doesn’t solve the issue being debated here.

Since I didn’t like Hunter/Seeker in the first place

I don’t think people should have to provide their location, even privately.

A person could in theory take a photo from my street and be within 100m of a photo I took in my house.

The original rule is easily verifiable. People can confirm “yep this is the same location”. But this you sorta have to reveal the exact location…

[Clucky] Does this proposal change what Hunter/Seeker is already doing in that respect, though? If you post a photo of a deliberately indistinct street detail and I follow it with an upgrade claim from a clearly identified street in a named city, the rule says that if they are the “same place”, you should confirm that publicly to the group by voting FOR it.