I recently had a nomination rejected. No reason was given, so I appealed on the grounds that no reason was given. The appeal was then rejected, on the grounds of pedestrian access. The location in question has good pedestrian access, in fact it’s in a place that people going for a walk would regularly pass, so the rejection is wrong, but because it’s an appeal, I can’t appeal again.
I honestly don’t think this process shows respect for the time and effort of volunteers proposing wayspots.
welcome to the forum @d0me5t0s
can you show us a screenshot of your contributions page to confirm there was no reason shown? the rejection reason is supposed to be there between the title and the main photo.
if you are close enough to submit again, and you still believe the point of interest is eligible, then you can try again in a new nomination. i would recommend posting screenshots of the nomination here for feedback though.
Welcome to the community.
If the rejection says “Wayfarer Criteria” or something similar, then it would have been rejected by the ML. The appeal rejection may or may not be accurate. However, if you can screenshot your nomination here, it will help us find a way to help you get it through, if it is eligible.
I checked your submission again and I agree with the reviewer. The eligibility of the object itself is questionable in addition to the safety concerns.
What safety concerns do you have? The location is perfectly accessible on foot. Are you worried people might fall in the water?
As for eligibility of the object, it’s something that’s particularly characteristic of the area, although there aren’t many of them. It’s definitely something that you’d want to be made aware of if you were exploring the area. Maybe it’s more interesting if you rely on the infrastructure to keep your house above water.
If you could post screenshots of your full original submission we may be able to help.