Hello!
I would like to point out the inconsistencies about picnic areas which should be eligible since they promote social interaction!
The park has a sign which says it is a local park. I even posted the google satelite map which clearly shows it’s a local park and you can see the table on it, aswell as playground areas.
I would like to ask why appeal team regards this as illegible and if they can look at it again.
This looks like a great picnic table that’s easily seen on the satellite linking up with the path around the park. It looks like a lovely social space.
Hope the forum staff can take another look like they did for me
You say the original rejection was for not permanent, but it is more likely the rejection said “not permanent and distinct”, which you interpreted in a fairly normal way. Hoowever, this rejection doesn’t mean what you think.
Rejecting for not “permanent and distinct” is done for several reasons
The object is not permanent
The object is not distinct
The object doesn’t meet criteria and this was the best available rejection, because thumbing down for Social, Exercise and Exploration does not reject the submission.
