Appeal to restore removed wayspots

Wayspot Appeals
,
1

Hi. In the past few days there has been a massive removal in my city, mainly of artistic murals and graffitis. I want to make an appeal because most of them are valid wayspots. There are a lot of wayspots, but please take a close look to each of them and consider restoring them, because even if the title contains ‘graffiti’, they are not an illegal piece of art.

2

Many “Graffiti” where previously accepted but many are now being removed.

If the Mural does not have any evidence that it was approved by the authorities (or the submitter didn’t confirm this) then they are being classed as Grafitti and being removed as “vandalism” and “Not Permanant” as the authorities could come and paint over at any time.

3

Yes, I understand that. That’s why I’m making the appeal, because the murals are not just “vandalism” that can be painted over at any moment.

4

Yes, but I think what @SlimboyFat71 is getting at is that you may need to provide some evidence that these are sanctioned or commissioned pieces of art.

Simply stating that something is “Not an illegal graffiti, it is legal, culturally important, and in a public wall” may not be enough to get them restored without something more substantial to back up your statement.

For ones such as “Graffiti Reymar”, it is on the front of a business called Reymar, so I would say that probably stands a better chance of getting restored without additional evidence as it can probably be inferred that the business commissioned it.

5

We used to simply nominate a park by showing that there was evidence of a park at the location. Reviewers could search for a municipal website, or just look for a google maps label and evidence from StreetView.

Are staff now going to start removing all the parks? Someone could see if they can find a charter document, take a GPS-tagged photo, etc., to get them reinstated.

But why, though? If the company is considering to remove all our hard work, can they not do the research themselves? Or ask the originators to supply evidence by a certain deadline to prevent removal?

Shouldn’t changes to the rules apply to future submissions, rather than past ones?

6

There’s a difference between a park, which is inherently eligible, and graffiti, which is often vandalism, given that vandalism has been inherently ineligible due to likely being temporary and at risk of being painted over or repaired.

I’m not saying all graffiti is ineligible vandalism of course. There are plenty of examples of good graffiti. But as with everything wayfarer related, if you’re submitting something, whether it’s a nomination, an edit, or an appeal, the onus is on you to make sure you provide any relevant evidence that can help with whatever you’re submitting.

1 Like
7

The brain one is also comissioned, Comedy too, as most of high quality ones are. There is a big difference between someone making a detailed, high quality painting that takes hours or days to some vandall spraying over quickly af trying not to get caught by police. In fact, some graffitis are on the instagram of the author, but again, having to provide this kind of evidence for all an each of them feels kind of OVERKILL. Quality enough should speak for itself for it’s validity or not.

1 Like
8

Please note: The comments from fellow wayfinders are not being critical. They are experienced and are trying to help you by pointing out the sort of issues that often end up with a rejected appeal, in order to give you the chance to improve your appeal.

Please remember that quality of artwork is also a very subjective area and there will always be a range of views.

2 Likes
9

If the instagram account is open to who the artist is and not hiding his true identity by only taking a picture of his back, wearing a mask or a similar this would be reasonable evidence that he is a commisioned artist (someone commiting vandalism is not likely to identify himself doing it).

Whether it would be enought I can’t say as it will be down to Niantic staff to decide.

10

Huh, i wonder in banksies would fall under vandolism then, cause im fsirly sure they arent appreoved by the council … they just choose not to remove them.

11

That would be down to the reviewers (I have never got a Banksy to review :frowning: ).

Some are removed so are not permanent, they all get news coverage and if news state that the authority are going to protect it and it is going to stay I can see this as it has now been authorised (after the fact) so could see that it would then be accepted.

I believe that Niantic are covering their backs that they are not encouraging vandalism so evidence needs to be shown. Also want to confirm that it is unlikely to be covered over anytime soon.

I have seen many that I would not have accepted, not due to their merit but due to the fact it is likely to be removed as unauthorised. It seems that Niantic are selecting areas where “Grafitti” wayspots have become a problem and removing them. If 10% are appealed and 10% of those are accepted that is a decent clean up rate…

12

Also wanted to add another wayspot that was removed a day before all murals. Although this one is not a mural, I think it was incorrectly removed:

  • Wayspot Title: Parque Infantil La Pista
  • Location (lat/lon): 42.46212965397005, -2.4082520326226726
  • Additional Information *: The wayspot is a park and was probably removed as it was considered a duplicate of another. That’s not true because there are two separated child parks next to each other. They are clearly separated, as one is for kids that are 2-4 years old, and the other 4-6. This is the correct photo for this park.
    la_pista
    la_pista512×384 75.1 KB
13

Perhaps you can explained how clearly it is separated

14

I was searching for a photo, but each of them have their own info-panel showing the recommended age and other recommendations. Also, there exists a separation in the ground. It is not that one wayspot is the slide and the other the swings.

15

Screenshot_20250514-235733_IITC
Screenshot_20250514-235733_IITC1080×2280 314 KB

Satelite are not showing anything about separation clearly. I suggest u get more photos

16

Because it’s hidden by the trees, but there are two parks in there

17

Word is not enough imho. U said its clearly separated but people here may not see from same view as you.

18

e83911c9571ae84a7ece65385cd0776f72bea6d0_2_236x500
e83911c9571ae84a7ece65385cd0776f72bea6d0_2_236x500236×500 68.1 KB

They are more or less like that, hope it helps clarifying.

19

It helps but u still need the playground boundry photo to compare with satelite . It will ensure people that the playground is clearly separated

20

maybe this photo sphere helps. It shows the park that wasn’t removed and the back of the sign with the recomendations. In the background is the removed wayspot.