I agree however, there are some details that were not addressed.
On trailmarkers while true that it doesn’t have to be visually interesting, the existence of a definite exercise trail seems to define its eligibility.
While the neighborhood sign can become a visual identifier for strava runs, a close association can be said for directional markers which:
Happenstance exercise or socialization do not resonate well with being a great places for those two. One can socialize on the street, one can visually identify a street by its street sign, sure. The neighborhood is seen as a place for residence, not active living/exercise/socialization. The neighborhood is not implicitly a place to socialize although there can be amenities that fit this bill (clubhouses, athletics field, etc.).
I’m also at the stance that neighborhood signs shouldn’t be an automatic rejection. On the other side of the coin, most neighborhood sign submissions lack the specific context on how it meets eligibility for being a great place to exercise, socialize, or explore.
I do think that is where the discrepancy shows. Each specific object is different, these differences may have merits one object has that similar ones don’t. When not put into context, the usual/common context is assumed. In the case of these signs without any more details from the submitter, reviewers are left to assume the common context: they are signs directing people of this particular neighborhood.