Hello and welcome to the forum!
From the articles, I also believe the structure as a whole is eligible.
Some improvements with how you can present better:
- Use the central hexagon as the focal point of the main photo.
- Present the text as a viewpoint (or a local equivalent) for the lake-park. My translation says it is a “pedestrian bridge” which sounds less catchy IMO (maybe this is just a translation issue). The first sentence in the supporting text can be better used in the description.
- If possible, imitate (using your own photos) the image seen in the article. It is shown on satellite and worth pointing out. If you can manage to have a street sign caught with the bridge, that can also work.
- Expound about the structure. Mention the project and what it was meant for (leisurely strolls, etc.). Putting what activities it supports and was made for that show it meets the eligibility criteria.
- Put a link in the supporting information.
- Remove mention of :
It may put off reviewers thinking it should be rejected (confirmation bias). It might also be used against you for voting request (this is under abuse btw).
Curious to know what text was presented for the appeal and if they took into account any link you’ve sent there.