Should have asked this in the ama
I submitted this
Tried to get some of the view in. Imo, these kinds of benches should make great waypoints as they are designed to sit and admire the views, whilst being on a nature reserve/trail. The rejection reason is clearly a bit dumb as it’s clearly permanent. My point to this is, there should be something added to the training and the criteria about these kinds of benches
I have only had 2 viewpoint benches approved and both happened to also be custom benches for the park (with the name of the park on the bench design). The others I’ve tried were all similarly rejected. Its a huge shame.
For what its worth, I’d have happily voted to approve yours
These are tricky, I do remember some advice from a prior discussion which was to concentrate on the viewpoint and not the bench, instead use the bench as an anchor for the submission.
I’m not entirely certain where this viewpoint is in relation to the loch, but often these are marked on OSM if they are not on Google Maps. If it’s on OSM you can deeplink to the POI like this - Node: 13062273480 | OpenStreetMap - and add it in the supporting text.
Just to clear up a wee bit, the loch ardinning nature reserve isnt just the loch, its marshland next to it as well, the trail and reserve are called thay, but the trial only really follows the loch for about a kilometer. It’s why I called it “looking over the Campsie hills” as thats where it’s mostly viewing, or at least, thats the best view of the bench. Slight issue was there was a bit of fog and rain when I took a picture yure from directly behind, so couldnt see.much, but the angle I took showed some of the hills lol
This isn’t what it was rejected for - the rejection message is very unhelpful. “not permanent and distinct” comes up in three situations:
Benches in scenic areas are not easy to get accepted, but are eligible. As per @shritwood, focus on the view, as that is what makes the bench special.
I have tried to get the view in. Problem is, I did that with another bench, got the rejection of the description being wrong or something like that
To be clear, my point isnt that this was rejected for any specific reason, its that, imo, there needs to be a bit of clarification on benches with a view, on trials, on hills etc, and then there needs to be training on them as well as the website to include these, either as potentially eligible or not eligible, depending where the clarification falls
This is not a comment on your nomination itself but all benches have a view.
It is up to the submitter to emphasise the view, it’s up to the reviewer to make a decision whether that view is strong enough to be classed as meeting criteria.
This is too niche a topic to get a clarification on. This is a recent bench-with-a-view submission that I got accepted. I didn’t /need/ to say much to justify the view in this case. I went with just-the-bench as the main photo because I felt it was safest.
With any borderline submission, meaning one that is often rejected by reviewers but could be eligible, make sure everything is spot-on with your submission. The rejection for the description could have happened to this one, as you have two errors in the short description.
This could have been why you get a rejection for a separate bench - not being careful enough with the narrative.
If you have problems typing/checking on mobile, then use Upload Later and do not upload immediately. When you get home, upload it, hover on the website and put it on hold as soon as it appears. Then you can check and edit and double-check the description and supporting narrative.
I like this bench; I think the view justifies it being a wayspot (assuming that there aren’t a smattering of existing bench-with-a-view wayspots nearby). Put a bit more about the view and the area into the description. I can’t see your supporting photo, but this should be with the bench in the foreground while focussing on the view.
Benches have also had an ML issue. So resubmitting will not be easy either 
like mine recently - this is the most GORGEOUS view over my town that I’ve seen from a park and you can spot some of the most iconic buildings in the town in the distance but the ML hated it, and because it also hated so many of my other eligible nominations I haven’t yet had enough appeals back to try this again
There already is clarification on scenic benches, what more are you needing from it?
https://community.wayfarer.nianticlabs.com/t/seating-benches/12484/2
Better training fir reviewers and for it to be on the website then would be my next suggestion.
It’s on the website. It isn’t in-front of reviewers, because it is not possible to display every criteria clarification to reviewers while reviewing. There isn’t space on the screen and people wouldn’t look at it.
You can of course put that link into the supporting text 
Ah. I was being too narrow. I was answering the question about Niantic showing the criteria clarifications and forgetting the onus is on the submitter to prove their wayspot. I need to get out for a walk. @gazzas89: what @shritwod said. You can put links in the supporting text, so add this link to your supporting text when you resubmit.
My 2 cents’ worth on this one.
Clearly those benches have been there a long time, so to me they’re permanent. The location is such that I would think there is no issue finding them within their environs, so distinct.
My experience though is that things like this struggle with reviewers unless there is some sort of shelter there or a sign. Many reviewers have been “programmed” to look negatively on benches. If it were my nomination, I’d look hard to find some sort of evidence that this is “officially” a scenic viewing spot.
It would be nice if there was more reviewer education or direction.
