So I submitted 2 different footbridges with the same design and intent less than half a km apart from each other. The one that gets used the least and brand new not even on the satellite map gets passed by the community but somehow the automated system thinks the other one isn’t worthy. 
If my community wasn’t asking me to make stops I’d be so done with wayfarers. Can’t wait to be done making the gyms we need and never send another POI.
Well for now, there is nothing else you can do but resubmit or appeal.
Wayfarer staff read the forum and perhaps they can take this into consideration for future AI upgrade.
You could perhaps write a better description. That one reads as you expecting this footbridge to sail through, so you have put no effort into actually selling it to the reviewers and giving it a description. You may have done this successfully with the other one, but that is lucky.
“This is a bridge that people have to use when they get out of their car” is not that interesting.
Bridges are a difficult category. In the past, the guidance was that pedestrian bridges could be eligible if they were part of a trail. That was later interpreted more broadly to include pedestrian bridges in general, and in my area I regularly see small bridges like this being accepted.
What does not help your nomination, however, is the supporting photo of the bridge in your rejected nomination. While the main photo may give the impression of a pedestrian bridge, the supporting photo makes it look much more like a fairly standard bridge forming part of a paved cycle or shared-use path.
The centre line reinforces that impression, and the long, straight path continuing into the distance makes the bridge itself look less like a distinct destination and more like an ordinary piece of infrastructure along the route.
The supporting text does not really help with that either, as it focuses on benches, tables and space between the parking lots rather than explaining why this particular bridge is distinctive or why it would be a good place to explore, exercise or socialise.
That is the overall impression reviewers are left with, so I am not surprised that this nomination was rejected.
Might want to take a course on architect and culture so you can understand that an older bridge will have more cultural impact in a society that a new one. The supporting info is to let people know, without this bridge people couldn’t reach these places thus it supports the cultural significance of the bridge. The stripe is there to show which side people should walk during heavy use hours, same as at a mall or airport.
Bottom line is that both of these bridges serve the same purpose in the same location for the same cultural group thus should be treated the same regardless of a stripe. If I wanted info on how to improve the submission I would have posted it in that channel but clearly it was good enough that the less cultural significance bridge was passed by the community.
Your tone here is a little aggressive and insulting which is not necessary.
This bridge cannot remotely be described as old.
It is purely functional and has minimal aesthetic value. It does not provide a fundamental link over a river to make a trail accessible as you can simply walk along the grass most of the time.
Footbridges are not automated acceptances. There is nothing anywhere in wayfarer saying this.
Again, the community voted the new one(barely built in the mast few months) to pass, I never said that it was old, I was comparing it to the new one thus making it the older one. I never said that “because it is old it must pass.” You may not like it, its aesthetic enough that students often take pictures of it for classes or draw it me being one of them. I dont like your tone either but thats why governmental bodies have censorship laws when necesary, you can go ahead and flag if you’re so compelled.
Censorship laws have nothing to do with this.
Sometimes, similar things get rejected or accepted simply depending on who the reviewers were and how the submission came across. Getting annoyed that one was rejected is not going to achieve much.
Censorship laws apply when one person dislikes the speech of another then they can seek the governmental body for review, which is what i sugeested you do. If you bother to read the whole thread then youd see that another person commented that Scopely employees look at the thread and take it into consideration while updating the automated system so that was my goal, not just complaining because I am annoyed. Anyway, I’m done responding to your comments. have a great existence.
Strongly suggest staying respectful to everyone - people are giving completely correct advice, and this is very much what is expected to happen in a public forum.
The automated review is certainly often strict. We don’t know the algorithm it uses, but my guess is mainly looks at the picture and compares it to the extensive database, if it resembles something that most people don’t approve, it will reject.
Most of us had plenty of AI rejections, I don’t nominate a lot, so I will just appeal. Hardcore nominators will often just resubmit with a different picture, as they don’t have any appeals left.
We have also seen the impact of the AI being disabled, during those times the number of complete rubbish nominations is ridiculous. It probably saves a lot of people from receiving warnings/bans.
So if you really want to help, appeal the nomination, and the database will have another example.