This is a wayspot that received a notice of rejection today. It is the main ground of the national university, and an important event is taking place. It is naturally open and can be clearly seen on all maps. Nevertheless, reviewers rejected it for reasons that were unacceptable. Where is this place that is not permanent? If I appeal, it will be highly likely to be approved, but I lack the right to appeal. Because I have a similar case. I have to wait a maximum of 20 days. Why should the submitter be responsible for most of the burden? If this is the case, reviewers who have reviewed my wayspot will not receive any penalty, and they will believe their review is correct. This is very unfair and undermines the motivation of the submitters.
The full rejection reason is Temporary/Seasonal or Not Distinct. That last bit is important and is likely why your nomination was rejected, as your picture doesn’t seem to focus on anything in particular.
A sports complex is obviously a great place to exercise, but from your photo it’s clear that there are multiple different sports courts/pitches/tracks here. Each of those could be nominated by themselves, rather than having one nomination to try to cover them all. So for example, you could have a wayspot for the running track, a wayspot for the basketball court and a wayspot for the football pitch, as they are all distinct locations with different purposes, rather than trying to combine them into a single nomination like you tried to do.
As you mentioned, other facilities (except green ground) have already been approved as stop. I also know what you mentioned. So I took a picture with the green ground in mind. That is a soccer field and at the same time it is used for various purposes when there is no game. The people of our country are well aware of this. That is why it is called the sports field, and I also submitted it under the same name. It means only green ground, not the entire facility in our country. Since the place is always crowded, we chose a quiet time zone and filmed it as far away as possible so that other facilities and people do not appear. So, parts of other facilities were only taken together. I used it as it was without editing because of the experience of being rejected for low photo quality when cutting the picture. I don’t know about the detailed feedback from reviewers, but I agree that reviewers may misunderstand because the distinction is not clear like your opinion. In general, reviewers approved this case roughly, but it’s a little unfortunate. Thanks.
Very much agree with Hank here, that there are several POIs just from the photo. You can have 1 for the soccer field, 1 for the basketball court, 1 for the track, etc. The complex as a whole can be nominated, too, but you may want to see if there is something else that can place mark it in your main photo, such as a sign.
I remember during the edits challenge updating a mult-sport facility, as the title/description/photo needed to be updated. It’s primarily used for ice hockey and figure skating, as it has 2 rinks, but there are also separate rooms where the city park district offers other sports, like dancing, cheer, fencing, etc. There are also historical plaques inside with their own Wayspots, including 1 for a local hall of fame, but I just updated the main complex Wayspot, not the additional ones for the plaques, rinks, and other spaces.
