Another rejection, and this one is a doozy.
Absolutely seething about the one. Rejected because its a natural feature! Literally didn't read any of description, the supplemental or even know that a Quay is by definition "man made".
a stone or metal platform lying alongside or projecting into water for loading and unloading ships."
Made of blocks of solid granite in the form of a wall. Here is a picture at low tide. It's even marked on the map as "Scott's quay". Google it and many articles e.g. https://cornishbirdblog.com/scotts-quay-constantine-a-hidden-history/
Rejection reason "Natural feature"
Description "Scott's Quay. Built in the early 1800s by Charles Scott."
Supplemental "Marks the end of the public footpath. very popular as can be seen from google search. Historical landmark as was built in the early 1800s by Charles Scott."
Now I didn't put the image of the granite blocks in the submission- because I literally gave details that it was constructed and its a Quay!
No option to appeal - this is like a joke at this point. I spend hours each night looking at inner city graffiti, postboxes, natural trust direction posts, chip shops, bins and yet genuine historical local landmarks with foot traffic/visitors in the hundreds each day are blocked without even reading the description. What is point!
I have suggested in the other thread that you submit the information board mentioned in the link about the site.
if it’s not usable then the photo showing the granite walls is best as then you can see it’s a structure. That website link should be in the supplementary. Use it as a source to write an informative description and more in the supplementary. This improves your nomination, but it will still be difficult.
An interesting part in that link was
She arranged for the derelict quay to be rebuilt, put in place the public right of way and built the stone stiles along the route. All this so that local people could enjoy the wildlife and the river.
I presume the stepped stile I pointed to in the other thread is one of those built as part of this route - it looks like it. I think there is the kernel of an interesting story about this route and a chance for the council to promote a walk not only for locals but for visitors, that tells that industrial heritage and development to a lovely place. Encouraging a walk is also great to leave the car behind and think about sustainability.
if you use the finger posts you might have issues about pedestrian access so do ensure that you address that in supplementary.
It is always hard to find and then present things in a rural setting. So if you need help then do post in the nomination improvement section.
Thanks for the reply, I only posted this separately as it seemed blocked before, I think because it failed to post because of the embedded picture of the blocks.
I couldn't post the picture of the blocks before because its not accessible at low tide.
The crazy thing is that there is lots of interest in this area. While its a private farm it holds festivals (see rejected gather Sign, and check just north of Scott's quay where you can see a very large gathering with lots of campers on satellite view). The owner is elderly/retired and is the one who made the noticeboards, and allows for the multiple trails on the whole area. It has been listed in multiple magazines and includes a barge more to the east, a gypsy caravan, an ancient medieval settlement site with memorial Bench and scenic view (viewable on ordinance survey, but rejected as inappropriate!). I could go on.
I'll try one more time which I am fairly sure will get rejected, then I'm rejecting wayfarer as a waste of time.
From what I can tell, it is a very interesting historical site (and sight) and could be of great value to Wayfarer if the description of this place contains some of the historical facts. The trick is to convince reviewers that this is not a random pile of bricks. I would absolutely change the description to something a bit more elaborate.
When it gets rejected a fourth time, I would put it in 'Appeal', explain to Niantic that this is in fact a historical site and not reviewed properly, and then forget about it for a few months (appeals tend to be slow). Wayfarer is not something that yields results overnight. Ironically, all those boring playgrounds DO, but the more interesting sites that require some more careful reviewing tend to fail or take longer..
Don't quit on the really good nominations, but fight for them :)