Local context not taken into account - rejection

Nomination Support
1

I’ve made an appeal that has been rejected 2 times, in my point of mind for stupid reasons and the context is not taken into consideration. Prove me wrong and help me understand. The first time, it was rejected because it was in the reviewers mind on someones private property, but it is on a public lamp post so it is not on someones private property.

The second time it was rejected because “no walking access”. Further context is that it is an area with people living in villas and the traffic is max 30 km/h. It is a walking trail through the area that is well known in Lindesberg (Sweden). Am I crazy to try to be stubborn and appeal again or should I just relent and accept that argument that it is on a road that is dangerous to walk on?
In my head - people living in houses - they don’t walk outside, they just take their car? That is not how we do it in sweden, we walk even if there is no walking pavement specified.

Down below you can see what I wrote in swedish to appeal.

Ledmarkör för att komma vidare mot Tempelbacken eller Näset. En populär vandringsled. Lindesberg ligger vackert vid en sjö lagom stor att promenera runt. Ledmarkörer som guidar dig rätt. Naturupplevelser blandas med kulturupplevelser där den ena vyn överträffar den andra. Den populära Lindessjön runt med alternativ slinga runt bland annat Parkudden, Tempelbacken och Kyrkberget. På sträckan finns bland annat: rastplats, landstigningsplats, utegym, amfiteater. Skall godkännas för: 1: Ingen dubblett finns utplacerade runt var 500-meter eller vid vägskäl för att en skall hitta rätt. 2. Är en erkänd led med välkänd logga. Läs mer om Lindesjön runt här och dess erkända logga: https://www.bergslagen.se/download/18.46e75e9815789f5764c5b54/1475565717767/Lindessjon_runt.pdf#:~:text=När%20du%20vandrar%20runt%20Lindessjön%20får%20du%20uppleva,att%20det%20tar%202-3%20timmar%20att%20gå%20runt 2. Sitter på ett offentlig lyktstolpe som inte är på någons tomt. 3. Ett område där visserligen bilar kan köra, men max 30 km/h och ett promenadvänligt stråk (varför skulle annars ledmarkören/leden finnas där?). 4. Går att bekräfta och jämföra huset i bakgrunden för att ledmarkören sitter där via google maps street view: Google Maps och går att zooma närmare på stolpen för att se den finns där. 5. Läs mer om ledmarkörer och vilka som skall godkännas här vilket denna bör göra utifrån kända loggan och erkänd vandringsslinga: Trails & Markers

2

Hello @Daisychinsaw04

Could you provide the full nomination photos text and since it seems important here the location. That way the wayfinders here can offer their views about any issues or if it is good.

1 Like
3

Ofc, but I have also added a google maps link :slight_smile:

unnamed
unnamed384×512 82.7 KB

unnamed (1)
unnamed (1)384×512 50.1 KB

4

What is that? The photo looks like youve submitted a lamppost. That doesn’t meet any Wayfarer criteria.

5

The logo is a well established sign for the walking trail called Lindesjön runt :slight_smile:

In the links I’ve added you can read more about it; it is in swedish though. https://www.bergslagen.se/download/18.46e75e9815789f5764c5b54/1475565717767/Lindessjon_runt.pdf

6
  • First image should be zoomed in more on the POI (the sign).
  • 2nd image shows taken from vehicle.
  • Streetview shows POI is on the boundary which is part of the Reject criteria.
  • Without the snow, no safe location to stand.

Seems like a correct Reject IMO.

Screenshot 2026-03-17 200934
Screenshot 2026-03-17 200934328×358 38.1 KB

1 Like
7

Even though it is a public lamppost?
Even though people actually live there and walk on the street and it is a a speed limit?

8

Simple answer. Yes.

“Single-family private residential properties (SFPRP), farms, and K-12 (schools or facilities primarily focused for persons under 18 years of age) are ineligible. This includes the outer facing facade, fence of these locations, and property boundaries.”

Occasionally, people have argued “Safe” due to “lack of passing traffic” but most reviewers work on the problem if this became a Gym and several people are expected to stand in the road to raid.

As you stated, local reviewers have voted to Reject twice. Appeals have failed twice.

You think “Stupid Reasons”, I have stated 4 legitimate reasons in regards to official criteria.

You can submit again but…

  • I don’t see it being accepted.
  • Could be classed as “Spamming low quality nominations” and “could” lead to suspension of Wayfarer and GAME accounts.

IMO: Step away from this one, not worth the risk.

Good luck with future requests.

1 Like
9

Thanks for explaining, still think it is stupid reasons, but I can accept :slight_smile: