I am just creating a thread for this ML rejection I had a few months ago, so that I can collate all of the original nomination information and add some additional information that I can cross-reference in one place for an appeal. Any advice welcome! @salixsorbus@frealafgb I think you might be interested? To ML it would have just looked like a lump of rock in some bushes, but I think this stone meets exploration acceptance criteria.
Screenshots from the links referred to in the nomination set out below. When I took photos there was vegetation obscuring the remnants of the inscription, so at that time the other side looked better than the one in the photo below:
And forgot to include that “beating the historic boundaries” is an important local annual tradition, which underlines that these stones have cultural significance: Abingdon Boundary Walk 2026 | Abingdon Blog
As a general principle, boundary stones need visible markings, so that reviewers can be confident they are a boundary stone.
If the markings are obscured by vegetation, fix this by removing the vegetation. Ivy takes time, since the bits that stay behind cling and carry on obscuring, so it takes a bit of work.
If I saw this whilst reviewing, I would see this just as a slab of stone. Without visible markings (as suggested by @salixsorbus), it would be hard for me to know if this is legitimate or not. I know websites and documentations can validate that a boundary stone may exist in that area, but in the event of doubt, people without local knowledge will most likely reject.
Thank you for all your advice. I am going to try a resubmission rather than an appeal, with the main photo facing the engravings and description explicitly referring to the stone being engraved. It is also helpful that I can submit more supporting photos now. It might even get it past ML, but if not the nomination should be in a better shape for an appeal.
You can include screenshots in the supplementary images. So you could include one from the old map. Or if you have a listing then an image of that plus the link. By putting the image in front of the reviewer you are instantly giving them a richer background to your nomination and showing you have put work in. This should engage the reviewer more with your nomination.
I hadn’t realised that screenshots were permitted and I had already resubmitted the nomination. Although I can edit the text, it won’t let me edit supporting images. I’ll bear that in mind for future submissions, thanks!
As posted in the other thread, I have discovered a version of the 1875 map with the parliamentary boundary on it and it goes right through the boundary stone location as denoted by ‘B.M. 186.7’ & ‘B.S.’
Also noteworthy that following the boundary to the east takes you to Wooton Road where there is another boundary stone at the ‘B.S.’ annotation, which is an established wayspot. And the boundary stone on Radley Road that I managed to get accepted as a wayspot last year is at the eastern limit of the boundary line where ‘B.M. 198.7’ must be referring to the OS benchmark on it.
I can’t use it, because it isn’t my photo. I could have included it in the supporting photos, had I realised it was OK to do that before I made the nomination.
I could improve on my nomination with a new main photo where the engraving is clearer and/or include a zoomed-in photo of the engraving and the parliamentary boundary map in the supporting photos.
Other than that, I am not sure what other information I can provide to demonstrate that this is not a “regular” boundary marker?
Is that the same photo you put in the original post? It is lower quality here than that older photo, but that could be an artefact of the upload. Certainly, the engraving isn’t as clear here as it was before.
I would definitely resubmit. Spamming low-quality submissions can be treated as abuse, but this is not a low-quality submission.
I’d try a photograph from an angle, so that it shows the shape of the boundary stone. The first submission did this well, but missed the engravings, so I would go for a 30-45 degree angle away from straight-on, possibly also slightly from above (close to an isometric view).
It had been covered by foliage until recently, so there may have been some debris still on there that was affecting the clarity of the engravings or it had weathered at an increasing rate in the last 14 years compared with the previous 100+ years.
It would be ideal if I could get it past ML and into the community voting, whom supported the Drayton Road boundary stone, then another appeal might not be necessary.
It’s quite possible the weathering has increased. A 1960s boundary post near me was perfectly legible when I first saw it 18 months ago, but has noticeably degraded since then.
