Thats a wooden carving of a mushroom, it shouldnt have been rejected in the first place but i at least sort of understand mismatched location as i had no way to actually verify its location. But the appeal person saying its rejectdd as a normal carving, normal.or fantastical, carvings are acceptable per the guidelines.
You’ve already asked about this here:
I wasnt wanting it buried in another chat
As an answer to your pther question
But you cma clearly see the tree stump its been carved from undernearh it its not been bought
It wouldn’t have gotten buried; others would have seen it.
There’s really nothing about this nomination that makes me want to go out and find it. You have to convince reviewers that this is worth exploring, but to me, this just seem ordinary and indistinct. Therefore, I agree with the appeals team’s decision to reject this.
I see that this is along a trail and near a golf course, maybe being a neat thing to find along the way. Including something about these areas in the description makes it more interesting. Being it could be a little hard to find, you could note that it’s hidden in the area, letting others know to keep an eye out for it.
If you don’t want to include any info about where this is located near, that could be included in the supporting info, which could help with the mismatched location.
It’s on the burden of the submitter to prove that a nomination meets criteria, and from a reviewer POV, I might reject this for either being indistinct or inaccurate location, as neither of these are fully explained to the reviewer.
- The whole point fo exploration is for art pieces, including wooden carvings. You may not like it, but it is a wooden carving in a tree stump, so imo youre wrong with that
2 its literally a mud trail next to trees, i literally cant deacribe where it is but ive never had that issue with any tree covered places
- At the end kf rhe day, this isnt generic bought item, therefore"this is a standard carving" is not a rejection reason. The voters didnt reject it for that anyway, the appeal reviewer has, again, created his own rejection criteria
But like I noted, you didn’t fully prove this should be a Wayspot. It’s up to the submitter to convince reviewers that what they’re nominating should be on the map, and from my POV, this wasn’t done. It just seems indistinct and of no interest, so you should take this as a lesson on how to improve on your nominations.
Google Maps actually shows a hiking area nearby, Badger Trail Loop, as well as this being along the southern edge of Palacerigg Golf Course. Adding some additional details about where its near can be helpful, and make for a more interesting nomination. The red pin on the screenshot below is the coordinates listed as the location, and you can see the hiking area noted to the west, and the golf course to the north.
Hello @gazzas89
Yes it is the wrong reason for a rejection. It is not a fancy carving but it is fitting for a woodland. The level of artistic work is what we sometimes see in these sorts of places in the U.K.
I agree that proving location is the problem here. I have had some success with using Camera GPS for the supplementary, especially in these types of woods. I usually explain why I had to do this.
4 Likes
I dont actually know how to get the gps location ontk the picyures, i have it set so that they are imbedded in the ohotos, but that obviously doesnt work here lol
And moatly.im venting because its qhite oftne now that the appeal reviewers just tend to make up their own rejection criteria, if we have rejection criteria to stick to then so should they
Check your app store for a GPS camera. I use one called Timemark. It puts the GPS location on the photo itself as well as in the meta-data. Just remember to use it for the supplemental photo only. You would probably have to take the photo outside of the game from which you are submitting.
I always take outside of the app, holdover from 2 ohones ago where the games would close if i used the in game camera lol