Hello,
I believe the rejected submission you are referring to is at 45.64316361361031, -122.67507701382819, which appears to be a residential neighborhood, which could be one reason for rejection.
Another could be that it may not be safe, as the stamp faces the street, not the sidewalk. If it faced the inside of the sidewalk, it would be considered safe for pedestrians, but as it faces the street and is on the street corner, it can be viewed as unsafe.
Keep in mind that just because other sidewalk stamps have been approved in the past doesn’t guarantee they will be approved in the future. Just looking up the one by the Baptist church, it’s description is “Marks the former site of Edlefsen Weycandt Co.” Edlefsen Weygandt Co., the correct spelling, did lay the sidewalk, and there’s no record of them having an office there of any kind. It is next to a business though, is in the middle of the sidewalk in a safe area, so it is eligible; it just needs an update to the description.
The Schrumpf and Steele one is listed correctly as a sidewalk marker, and is outside of a parking lot. Now, that parking lot does appear to be for an elementary school, but the stamp doesn’t appear to be close to the school grounds. It also isn’t next to the street, instead closer to the fence for the parking lot. It is near a fire hydrant, which is a bit worrying.
While there is no clear clarification with sidewalk stamps, I do see them similar to survey markers, and we do have clarification on how they can be ineligible.