In my area, there’s a large nature reserve of around 17 km2. Some poi’s are wayspot, but a large majority of the area is not on the wayfarer map. I recently nominated some trail markers with succes and decided that I would try and work my way through the area.
I did a walk and nominated every marker on that specific trail, assuming that a majority of them were eligible. Most of the markers have a name or supplemental info on them, while some are just an arrow signaling which way to go. I did suspect that the ones with just an arrow might be declined. However, the votes are starting to come in, and the majority of my new nominations are being declined for being “not permanent or distinct”. I am suspecting that the problem is the distinct part, and I’m a little surprised. One was rejected for the picture being of low quality, which I’ll accept and try to take a better one.
With most of the nominations I wrote a short sentence alt the colour of the trail, since it signifies the difficulty of the path. With a few of them, I wrote a bit more about the name of the trail, or what it’s leading to.
I thought that most of these markers were eligible, but if I have misunderstood this specific kind of wayspot, I’ll stop walking these routes. If I follow all the trails, I’ll get a couple of hundred kilometers, and while I like walking I’ll might not stop for pictures 
I’ll add some pictures of rejection. One is the blurry picture, which I’ll accept, the others are the “not distinct” ones.
One was marked as unsafe, which really surprised me as it’s on a very broad gravel road/path where cars can’t normally access. This area is not accessible by car.
This is a screenshot of the specific area, where most of my nominations were made. As you see, there are very few wayspot, so it’s not that the reviewers are met with plenty of other trail markers
With the exception of the one with the more distant photo, I would be appealing each of these. If you can find an online map of the trail it would be worth including a link to that in the appeals (and the supplemental info box in future).
Sometimes if reviewers can’t be sure that a trail marker is where you say it is, they will mark as not distinct (or find any excuse) to reject it. Can’t be sure, but I suspect that’s what is happening here.
Oh, the crossroads one is probably a fair rejection though.
Thanks for the response. It’s nice to know that it’s not completely out of place to make these nominations.
I do have links to the trails, that I can supply. It’s just a bit frustrating to appeal, since I made a lot of these nominations and the appeals are only two each month.
I’ll wait until all of them have been through the voting, and then pick out which to appeal, which to try again and which to just accept the rejection.
Tell me about it. The appeal backlog queue is real.
Oof, yeah, that is quite the project. Luckily all the trails I’ve been subbing are urban, so I can drive to the area and do a short walkabout.
Most of my appeals end up going on gyms or sports training sites which obviously meet the exercise criteria, but only have a 50% rate with reviewers (100% on appeal so far).
I have three of those waiting for appeal resets now, and I’m sure there will be another five in voting by the time those are applied for.
If there is a trail map at the start of the trail I try and make sure that is submitted and approved first.
You can refer to it in the supplementary info.
I also use that image or one online as one of the supplementary images. And if it is online I include the link.
I do all of this to try and make it easy for the reviewer to see what they need to approve my submissions.
That makes sense and I will try to remember going forward.
In this case, I saved them all as drafts and submitted when I got home. Following your advice, I could have submitted the info board first, waited and then submitted the rest working my way through the trail beginning near the info board? Making it easier for people to review.
I’ll keep that in mind, going forward.
These trails are not new, so by them not being spots already, they are obviously not just known by a bunch of other reviewers. Most other spots in the area are 3-7 years old. A few are new, but all created by the same person.
Thanks for the tip, I’m still trying to switch my mindset to remember that the reviewers don’t know what I do 
When I review trail markers on unknown trails, I always look at other spots in the area and compare.
Treat them like children who are only there to get the PG medal. Too many just want to get through the review ASAP and onto the next one. They want to get their 1500 agreements, but if the decision is not immediately obvious to them they will either quickly reject, or skip and move onto whatever comes up next.
The only reviewers who are going to look up the trail / whatever and try to confirm that it’s all correct are the nerds like us lot, and there will always be fewer of us.
Not that I’m saying those guys are bad. We need their numbers or we would very quickly be back to 2 year waiting times, and I appreciate a well-written sub that saves me any effort too!
So yeah, spoon-feed them as best you can, and… you’ll probably still spend a lot of time rolling your eyes and adding another ‘not accepted’ to the appeal queue. But maybe slightly less time. 
Is it a hiking trail or is it meant for mountain bikes?
They are created for mountainbike by a local group in collaboration with the “administration” of the nature reserve. They are also described as usable for hiking, especially the green one which is solemnly on gravel roads.
Some parts of the trail has somewhat steep slopes or they are very narrow at certain parts, so I don’t do those parts.
All paths of this area - except the horse riding trails - are meant to be used by both cyclists, hikers and such and people are encouraged to share the area and be mindful of each other.
The paths are only green and blue, there are no red or black in this area, meaning they are not used in such a high speed that they are unsafe to walk on.
Okay that seems fine then 
Trails purely made for mountain biking are often a bit dangerous (and could warrant the “unsafe” rejection you have received), but if you make sure to provide proof that they’re safe to access that shouldn’t be a problem
The one marked as unsafe is placed at a point where two mountainbike trails meet two normal wide gravel trails for hiking/walking. They are all wide enough that a large tractor can pass (for maintenance) so that’s why that specific one was confusing to me.
All mountainbike trails are by law also hiking trails here. And these in specific are pretty safe for hikers, since they are easy trails, where especially the green one is suitable for beginners.
Several of the nominated markers are placed where the mountainbike trail meets or crossed a hiking trail or path, which is why the marker is placed, to point towards the right direction.
Obviously one should still be vary of the surroundings when out and about.
Agree with @wooperIooper that I would also have a very hard time seeing MTB trails as having safe pedestrian access. Since we don’t see the details you included with your nominations, I would worry that this did not clearly come accross. Note also that “pedestrians being allowed to be there” doesn’t necessarily equate to “safe pedestrian access” in the Wayfarer definition (see: disc golf baskets).
I suppose you could be right. Both in regards to others viewing them as unsafe, but also regarding whether or not they are within Scopely definition of safe 
I definitely don’t always agree with their definitions or criterias (they are very American and don’t take other cultures in much consideration) but I obviously still have to follow the rules and criterias, no matter my own thoughts.
I do think these trails are safe. I’ve been walking on them as long as they’ve existed (and even longer), but my own judgement is not enough - hence the voting system.
I’ll wait for the judgements of the other nominations, and then think very hard about what to do. And then decide.
Some of these trails are in areas where I’ve never even seen a bike or bike tracks, and where it’s possible to take pictures showing very far along the trail. Maybe those will be considered safe. Or maybe I should disregard the whole trail and just move on. I’ll give it some time and then take your opinions about safety to heart. Thanks!
I have something very similar not too far from where I live. There are trail markers for people AND bikes and the ratio of use is something like 1 bike : 100 people : 50 dogs. I’ve never felt unsafe at all. I’m confident I could lie down on the trail all day, and aside from a lot of odd looks, I’d be most in danger of being licked by the dogs.
Appreciate that an active mountain bike trail could be dangerous, but knowing one that isn’t, and seeing what you’ve said, I would be convinced that these trail markers are eligible.
But as always, it isn’t me you need to convince!
Couple of examples of my local one at 55.798393,-4.220397 first one is part of the mountain bike trail and the second is a long walking trail that uses the same pathways:
