Visually Unique should be Visually Distinct
It's only really thanks to my time spent here and before this, the Wayfarer subreddit, that I understood the 'visually unique' rating actually referring to a POI being visually distinct, i.e. easily discernible from it's surroundings rather than actually unique.
For example, I would previously review play areas in parks as 5* submissions but mark them down in this category as they all basically look the same. But this isn't what that field in the review requires of us. Now that I understand that it's distinction rather than uniqueness that we're being asked for, I rate them and many other things highly in this field - after all you would be hard pressed to walk past a play area in a park without having noticed it was there!
However, the vast majority of reviewers aren't spending time here, or on the subreddit, or any other dedicated channels in which these things are discussed and clarified. They're operating only on the 'surface' information provided by the Wayfarer guidelines and, having passed the test, believe they're doing right.
I had a blue plaque (marker of historical interest in the UK) rejected today due to reviewers misunderstanding this field. I took pains to mention in the supporting info that this wasn't a duplicate submission, knowing that the nearest wayspot on the duplicate list would be another blue plaque. But it was rejected for not being visually unique. Yes, blue plaques are all circular and blue, but the text and the purpose of the plaque will vary.
Using the current misunderstood "visually unique" rating: it looks like a blue circle like the other one down the road, 1*. Using this as the proper "visually distinct" rating: 5*, because a blue circle doesn't blend in with the red brick wall upon which it was mounted.
I think we need the name of this field to be changed on the review console to "visually distinct" to give the less learned reviewers a better idea of what's required in rating that field.