I might just be repeating myself when I ask questions - but as I said before, I want to learn and be a better reviewer and nominator
So please help me understand. Why are they not eligiable?
First they are automatically rejected by AI and when I try to appeal they get rejected because “no cultural or historical meaning”.
Some context, we have 2 limestone quarries which are, in my opinion amazing. Many also go there to bath (filled with water). What I nominated is not the actual bathing area but just the general limestone quarry. They are safe with some fencing around the quarry. I tried to argue that it is an amazing to explore. The water is crystal blue, which doesn’t really comes across. The freedom to roam act is relevant (for anyone to explore).
Your thoughts? I always (nowadays) get my appeals rejected, I just become so dejected, is there even any point of appealing anymore? Or is it that I make bad appeals? I write them in swedish. Or I appeal lost causes?
Natural (naturalistic) landscapes (which includes ones which have been completely altered by mankind, such as these) are hard to get accepted.
Always think back to the key criteria (Explore, Exercise, Social) and determine which one(s) of these apply. Here, it is obviously Explore.
It really helps to have an anchor - something you can tie the submission to and say that this spot should be the wayspot. Without this, it’s hard to justify why you have chosen this location instead of any other location.
It also helps a lot if the feature you want to submit is marked on maps.
Photo 1 is “just” trees and a hillside. Move on from this.
Photo 2 is “just” a very nice picture of a lake. Absolutely no anchor!
Photo 3 is “just” trees and greenery. Move on from this.
The last photo is just about suitable as an anchor, but you still have a problem with this viewpoint rather than any other. If this lake/quarry has a name and shows on google maps as a place where people come to explore (ratings help, tagged photos help, photos on other websites help), then this stands a chance.
I used photo 4 and 2 as my nominationphotos and the other 2 as supporting fotos.
There is: Kvinnersta chalk quarry - Google Maps
I’ve added that but yea, still rejected.
My camera is not the best… other peoples pictures are much more beutiful then mine I can see now
An anchor is anything physical that stands out to mark a place. For a park, this might be an entrance if there isn’t a sign or it might even be a sign that is a list of park rules! This anchor is does not in itself have to be worth exploring (etc) but is acting as a proxy. This is needed because a large open space like a park has to have its wayspot at a specific location, just like everything else, and that location needs to be distinct.
If an area has a marked viewing platform or plaque, that is the obvious anchor. Without that, you need to find something distinct to act as the anchor.
It’s not always easy. This lake quarry is big and the wayspot could be anywhere, so find a somewhere. Since it is marked on google maps with an excellent rating (this helps reviewers :)), I would go with the precise location that the main google maps photo was taken from.
In your supporting text, acknowledge that this is a large area and explain why you have chosen the location you have. Definitely link to the google maps pin with the reviews.
However, I just checked wayfarer and Utsiktsplatsen vid Södra Kalkbrottet already exists for the southern quarry lake, so you might find it hard to get another one there. The northern lake also has a wayspot for an information board Kalkbrott Norra Kvinnersta.
This means both quarries are represented, so any extra wayspots without an information board, marker, plaque etc, need strong justification.
Google maps shows something interesting at 59.372405, 15.239734 and at 59.371377, 15.237565, both of which have potential as extra wayspots.
(That second location is not where the photo is, so the wayspot cannot go at that location, but can use whatever that diving spot is if it hasn’t already been used by the existing wayspot.)
Yes, I just saw that aswell! The informationboard must be new and Utsiktsplatsen vid Södra Kalkbrottet I nominated (I guess that is what you mean by anchor) =)
Sort of - that platform is eligible in its own right. An anchor is more like something that wouldn’t be eligible by itself with no context, but is acting for a larger space. I’ll try to find some examples.
I mean I think I understand, but if u find an exampel it is helpful. But not necessery, it just is easier to understand the reasoning behind a rejection. If i feel it is valid it is easier to move on. Which I feel it is in this case
It is one of the most fun things to find new places and nominate, but you also gets tunnelvision when you are dead set on getting a nomination through.
Or is it that I make bad appeals? I write them in swedish. Or I appeal lost causes? 
The informationboard must be new and Utsiktsplatsen vid Södra Kalkbrottet I nominated (I guess that is what you mean by anchor) =)