We literally have tons of stops all over town that are “wooden signs that name the neighborhood”- nothing more than a wooden sign. My submission is a covered bridge that is the entrance to the Covered Bridge Farms neighborhood. There are walking paths and benches to sit at.
The covered bridge itself is not a safe place to stop and stare at your phone. The walking paths and benches nearby do not have any relevance to the location of a wayspot. They might be eligible, but streetview hasn’t gone up this stretch of road so I can’t see them to comment.
Many community neighbourhood signs, which are of very dubious eligibility to begin with, are in unsafe locations (e.g., median strips) or ineligible locations (e.g., attached to SFPRP boundaries), but get accepted by reviewers anyway.
Hi,
Location signs or structures which is what I personally would call them are all individually assessed. And results can be variable as these are all different.
This example looks as though a good case can be made for this to be acceptable. It is a distinct structure.
It’s hard to tell the space around it. And that seems to be the crucial thing.
If you’re wanting to try again, try to take a really pretty photo - yours is very dark and shows no detail of the structure, so it makes it hard to see what is interesting or significant about it.
I would also improve your description by adding more detail about the structure itself, and spellchecking it before submission. You can name the architect/designer to add more information.
In your supporting information, mention how pedestrians can access it, as it seems tjis was a rejection reason. It appears there may be paths outlined in white paint, but draw attention to this if it’s the case. Also talk about why it’s interesting.
Unless this has a plaque (which would probably be a good proxy as it would be near the bridge and have safe access), it isn’t easy to find out the architect or designer for a covered bridge. From the perspective of road management, they are/were just road infrastructure, even though are genuinely interesting and often tourist features (while car touring).
The white paint is to mark the roadway where vehicles should be, indicating that the edges have a height restriction and that it is a single lane width. They do not mark pedestrian-safe space as no-one expects people to walking along these roads.
The pull-over the op mentions in the appeal is necessarily distant from the bridge and cannot validate the bridge as having safe access.