My initial submission of a waterfall got rejected which was very confusing with no given reason. So I appealed it and it got rejected again. The reason given was that it’s a natural feature, and I should take a picture of a sign instead… It’s a very obvious waterfall with a platform aimed at it, it’s pretty hard to miss that it’d need a red arrow pointing to it and so doesn’t have one. That confusion aside, my main confusion is that the given reason isn’t in the rejection criteria, in fact the closest mention to a natural feature is within the recommendation for an area for exercise, listing a forest as a good idea. Forests would be a natural feature too…
I’m new to this so chose a very simple starter submission, I thought.
Oh lovely spot.
Water, woods, geology, mills, Scotland…….all the things I like
You could have described it as a viewing platform of the falls as the fence shows you are meant to look and not necessarily touch.
However there is already a wayspot at the view spot.
As you can see photos of the waterfall already are being added to the sign. And I suspect that might keep happening. But the view of the falls would be the way to go if you wanted to resubmit. Your description could then concentrate on the view rather than the other history of the area.
And I am adding this Glen to my list of places to go for walk (inspired by wayfarer).
Thanks for the info! I only just learned last night stops can have multiple photos, not sure how I missed that in game since 2016 ha. I’ll check it out.
I do think the waterfall itself with viewing platform deserves a stop of its own as it’s what many come to see especially after heavy rain where it thunders rocks down it from the hills. I’ll figure out a new submission for it, thanks.
It’s a lovely area and the Glen walk proper starts there, going back up into the hills following the cut of the Glen over the old mill water pipes and past the various dams. It crosses via a bridge next to a waterfall before steeply climbing a zig zag path up out the Glen where you get a lovely view. A little further back you reach smugglers cave, a natural cave formation with internal waterfall. You get 4 lovely walks spread along the hillfoots; ascent of Dumyat from Menstrie (stunning views) , Alva Glen, Tillicoultry Glen, Dollar Glen and castle Campbell.
I have a question, could I add an older photo such as those attached, taken at another time of year instead? It’s just Scotland can be very tough to get good light in winter in glens and forests.
Yes there is no date limit, it just has to be your photo, and not published anywhere……I like the one on the right when it’s in spate.
You get a sense of how powerful it is.
When you look at the photos you can give them a
Enough likes makes that photo the one that appears in the photo disc.
I found those four walks on Alltrails.com. i did not find specific map proof of these falls, but i remember a trail to smuggler’s cave. I iften link to alltrails.com in supprting info to proventhe existence of natural features that serve as well-known sites on walking trails.
Just to clarify my original confusion; the rejection was assigned to it being a natural feature, but that’s not mentioned as a rejection criteria in the article linked.
I think it’s fair to say that the other acceptance criteria mentioning other natural features, such as a forest being good, being the only word on it is misleading. If there is some unspoken rule about natural features it probably needs clarified for future people.
Did the “Natural feature” rejection only show up after the appeal? I believe that appeals reviewers can use rejection reasons that the community can’t choose.
Edited to add this link to a comment from Aaron:
Edited again (lol) to say that I think the appeals reviewer was trying to tell you that they weren’t convinced that this waterfall was interesting enough to search out to visit, and that a sign would help indicate that it is. A sign would also make it clearer when you have reached the Wayspot.
C would be this one, I’ll work on getting the others further up submitted if they aren’t already when they fix the collapsed path up there.
You can see why I was looking for it clarified as the ones further up definitely don’t have signs, but are important locations historically in the area and pretty places to walk. I’d like to add them but didn’t know the correct approach to.
I should maybe focus on the fact they are created dams with piping and structure for the historic milling industry.
I’m a nature over people kinda person, that’s why I’m struggling understanding nature not being good enough on its own merit. Scotland is mostly unsignposted nature, people walk the Glen to see nature, not sign posts. The significant places for stops are natural. So if that’s auto rejected I probably shouldn’t get my hopes up chaining it together through the Glen.
After the appeal rejection, correct. Prior to that, to paraphrase, it simply said ‘reasons’, which made it very hard to appeal properly not knowing the reason.
If they are landmarks on walking trails, I would focus on that first - because you have some proof of that with these trail links. But the history is good to explain why they are landmarks on the trails.
