I recently submitted a little footbridge along an unnamed, but marked trail in Duke Forest which is owned by Duke University and used for forestry research, but also open to the public for recreation along marked trails and roads.
I am not asking for help with the nomination, but wanted to comment on the reasoning for the appeal denial. It says “The Wayspot nomination in question is a normal footbridge in the woods which is an ineligible location/object under Wayspot rejection criteria.”
I don’t remember any wayspot criteria saying that a footbridge is categorically ineligible. Did I miss an update somewhere???
Footbridges can be wayspots but many are not interesting enough to merit being accepted. In this case, the phrasing “is [just] a normal footbridge” is probably valid, as a normal footbridge without anything to recommend it that is not a good submission.
I didn’t say they were automatically eligible. I understand the criteria well and get the reviewers, though rarely are footbridges interesting. As far as I know, they are generally accepted as part of a trail, which encourages exploration and exercise. I understand whether or not the community likes my submitted footbridge is a judgement call.
My comment is about the appeal reviewer’s determination that normal footbridges in the woods meet rejection criteria, which they don’t.
I think you may have misunderstood the appeal process. Footbridges do not meet rejection criteria, but that is not relevant because the wayspot has not been accepted in the first place.
When you appeal a rejected submission, it needs to meet acceptance criteria for the appeal reviewer to decide whether to accept it. This is not the same situation as appealing a wayspot that has been removed.
When the appeal review checks a submission, they are operating roughly like an appeal court judge. Not necessarily reviewing the submission from scratch, but looking at the review decision and seeing if it can be overturned.
This review decision couldn’t be overturned as there was no mistake by the reviewers - footbridges are not automatically eligible and the case you made was not strong enough.
My view
If the footbridge is on a trail/route /path then it is the function of the bridge as a means to continue your exercise/exploration rather than the qualities of the bridge. The footbridge doesn’t need to be interesting structurally it just needs to take you from one side to the other and be a bridge as opposed to a culvert. As such on a trail, just like trail markers, it is an anchor point on the map for the trail.
No thanks. As I mentioned, I don’t need help. I am just frustrated with the language the appeal reviewer used to say the footbridge met rejection criteria.
I get eligibility does not equal acceptance. Apparently I am not communicating well because you seem to have missed my point.
Thanks, I’ve been here for years and do understand the processes well. As I said just now, apparently I’m not doing a good enough job of communicating my frustration/concern, so people are misunderstanding the point.
I disagree in this case. I generally dislike the appeal rejections, but if the case made was not strong enough, then this footbridge does indeed fail to meet criteria.
Again, semantics, but failing to meet acceptance criteria is not the same as meeting rejection criteria. Similar, but not the same.
My whole point is that the wording of the email could be better so that people don’t get confused and think, “oh gosh, foot bridges should be rejected because they meet rejection criteria..”
Yes, I get that each decision is its own, but not everybody knows that. So my whole point is only that the language in the email could be better so that it doesn’t confuse people.
Oh, that’s an entirely different issue I agree with that.
The phrasing of lots of things in wayspot rejection emails is bad. You’ll find lots of threads on that issue, particularly around the rejection narrative for “abuse”.
… I just saw what you mean - many apologies for not understanding earlier. Since I knew this is a wayspot submission being rejected and therefore it is the acceptance criteria that matters, I didn’t even see it.
That email does indeed contain the phrase “rejection criteria” and is therefore very unhelpful and misleading.
I read it this way the first time, too, but I think it is just the text they have to copy paste from. I think they are rejecting for being “normal” rather than being a “footbridge in the woods” and I don’t take this as a clarification that any “footbridge in the woods” is ineligible.
(Really enjoyed the Duke Forest nominations I reviewed!)
Had a footbridge accepted in my local park (which is located in the woods) accepted by the inhouse wayfarer team a couple months back. They can be interesting, but most are indeed just “normal” bridges.
One of the issues that occurs is that mistakes do happen from time to time. Appeal reviewers are human, we all make mistakes. And we have seen before that the reason given does not make sense. And in this case the written response does not make sense - it is mixed up.
True, but I can say it is indeed a normal footbridge (along a marked trail) in the woods, which the appeal reviewer acknowledged, yet said it met some rejection criteria.
I am sure review staff have heavy workloads, it would just be nice if the language could either be made clearer or copied then tailored to each submission. I am not holding my breath, just wishing. As we see repeatedly in this forum, lots of people get very confused by the emails.
I’ve been really successful with my nominations in Duke Forest. This one could be viewed as more of a stretch because it’s a little footbridge (maybe 10 feet long) over a small creek that is dry at the moment because of our lack of rain. The rejection wasn’t a shocker.
I agree with that.