A fair location score starts with a defensible target.

The subject and the camera are not always in the same place

Imagine a tower photographed from the other side of a river. The tower has a location. So does the camera. A city-center coordinate describes neither with enough precision. Before judging the guess, a photo game needs a defensible account of what its answer represents.

WhenWhere uses source-recorded coordinates or a specifically identified site for reviewed locations. A coordinate printed with many decimal places is not proof of a surveyed historical camera position. The photo’s location note explains the scope and the allowance used for the answer.

For a large site or an aerial scene, one infinitesimal point would imply more certainty than the source supports. Where the evidence supports more than one reasonable target, documented alternatives can receive credit too. This is a per-photograph decision, not permission to place a pin anywhere in the same city.

Why one photograph has a different allowance from another

The full-credit radius represents the site’s extent and the precision of its documented location. An allowance of 250 meters means a circle around that target; it does not mean the camera position is known to the nearest meter. Other photographs use different radii.

The first-flight example is already public in the introduction. Its source record supplies location information. The game’s allowance is our scoring choice, not a precision guarantee from that archive.

The score falls gradually beyond the allowance

Consider the illustrative 250 m target above. The game first subtracts 0.25 km from the distance to that target, stopping at zero. It then applies a smooth distance penalty and rounds to a whole point. There is no abrupt drop immediately outside the circle.

Very small differences beyond the allowance can still round to 5,000. The radius describes the guaranteed full-credit area, not a promise that the rounded score changes at its exact edge. Year points are calculated separately; the complete rules show both score components.

Reviewed and approximate locations serve different purposes

New competitive daily selections require reviewed locations, excluding city-only references. Approximate practice photographs are labeled before the guess so the precision limit is visible. The same confidence should not be implied for a well-documented site and a broad city attribution.

Issued games retain their saved answer and scoring rules. If an archive record is corrected later, that correction does not silently rewrite an old game’s result. An older saved game can therefore display a different documented allowance from a newly created one.

For players, the useful sequence is to identify the scene, place the best-supported pin and read the result’s location note. The photo-location guide explains how to use viewpoints and street geometry before the reveal.

If a result looks wrong, follow the evidence

First compare your pin with the site named in the answer and the stated allowance. Check whether the image is an aerial view, a distant subject or a large complex. Then open the credited source: does it identify the specific location, or only the broader city?

After checking the reveal, use Report a concern to flag a date, location or image problem. Include the photograph’s title or source link. A useful report identifies the disputed detail and links to a supporting record. It is more actionable than saying the pin “feels wrong,” and it helps distinguish a source correction from an ordinary scoring difference.

You can read more about our sources and review approach or put the method into practice in the free daily game.