In short, it’s a seasonal pond that forms in a greenspace called Bunny Park (13 Hantamsberg St, Noordheuwel, Krugersdorp, 1739, South Africa), situated in the middle of the park. There’s a path crossing the north end of the pond, which leads to a wooden footbridge (already a stop), leading you to the east side of the park.
While there is no formal sign (it’s one of the few if not the only park in my neighbourhood without one), it’s clear to see how much foot traffic comes and goes in this area alone & it’s just one area of a fairly large park. So, can someone please help me understand why this has been rejected 3 times?
It’s not obvious where the best place to post is.i’m going to move this to Nomination Support
We can then help focus on this nomination and help you understand what has been happening and look to see if there are solutions.
What a lovely place.
It sounds likely that this was rejected by the auto assessment system ( nickname Emily). When this happens the rejection normally happens around 22- 24 hours after submission and it will say that it’s rejected by this process.
If possible can you provide the full nomination -
The main photo and any supplementary photos submitted.
The text - title, description, supplementary information
thanks @elijustrying
So, both times it was first rejected by Emily, but I appealed the first rejection and was told “The submission lacks uniqueness or historical and cultural meaning”
A pond is always going to be a tricky submission, because of pedestrian access. A notable point on the edge of the pond would be very helpful. Even a notable point for a pond used for wild swimming is likely to be rejected (I might still be annoyed about that one).
Natural features (managed natural features included) need /something/ for the wayspot to belong to a specific location rather than any other location.
This does seem like a lovely spot. But “Temporary” is a rejection reason, and you explain that it is seasonal. Is there something permanent you could take a photo of as an anchor instead of the pond?
Even if you could get the pond past the “automated process” rejection, it would be hard to convince that the pond is not a duplicate of the existing Wayspot.
Not really no, apart from the path that goes along the deepest part of said pond, there isn’t much else permanent besides the structure that makes the pond possible in the first place
I guess I’ll have to figure out another way to get more Wayspots in this park