When submitting a Wayspot Appeal, make sure to include as much of the following information as possible:
I believe this counts an an “aerator not fountain”.
Indeed it does.
I’m amused by the large number of recent photos showing the pond empty. I could just about understand one photo to show its genuine current status, but four of them (taken over a month) is unusual.
Looks pretty enough to be worth seeing if you lived there.
Not sure the specific intention of the device is important here.
This is a very small pond, so I don’t know that the same logic applies. In the cited case, the object is a good five metres+ from the shore. Here, you could reach out and touch it, so it may not meet removal criteria.
Personally, I think it’s a pleasant spot that would be worth exploring, but I’m not running this show 
The pond is a nice location (or was). The aerator is not. The cited case is an example to show what is meant by an aerator vs a fountain.
I get that, but the aerator is still pretty.
Just because it is doing a job and isn’t purely decorative, it seems odd to ban it on that account.
And as I said, I don’t think it’s totally clear that the one in the example is invalid due to what it is rather than where it is.
In any case, this is all just opinions. We shall see what the staff make of it!
Using the same logic it does not state that it only accounts to certain aerators.
Current criteria states that it is not eligible and should not have been accepted. Whether staff believe that it meets removal criteria is a different matter.
I don’t think it clearly says that it isn’t eligible though. The wording is:
“As it is a utility that is located in the middle of the water, it is not a great place to explore…”
That doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s the utility aspect that causes ineligibility, as we already know it being in the middle of the water makes it ineligible.
A utility can definitely be worth exploring under certain circumstances. I’ve seen old telephony buildings, Victorian water pumphouses and similar. If something practical is pretty or historic, then why not?
but the OP is an utility that is in the middle of the water. It is not out of the water. You can not stand up to the aerator without getting wet feet.
Your argument does not hold water (pun intended).
“This Graffiti Vandalism does not look exactly like the 1 shown in criteria”.
I am confident that the aerator does not meet Accept Criteria and should not have been accepted, the only question is whether it meets Removal Criteria.
Pretty sure I could sit on that bench and reach out and stick my hand into the water. In that situation I would classify it as safely accessible.
For the record, I probably wouldn’t have accepted it if I were reviewing.
I just also don’t think it meets any removal criteria at all.
But as I say, this is all just opinion.
Thanks for the appeal, @nexushoratio! We gave this a second look and decided to retire the Wayspot in question.
