Not at all.
It directly relates to the criteria and to @0ShtrudelMaster saying
Thank you very much for the detailed answer. I see what you mean, but I would argue that artists who do graffiti do not define any graffiti as vandalism.
Banksy was only used as the most obvious case.
So if I see illegal Street art by Lady K, Keo, Invader, Inkie etc etc they should be rejected for being vandalism?
Does this logic only apply to Banksy?
I would check it out if possible to see how the artist and possibly other sources wiser than me on these matters regarded the object.
If I couldnât reach a decision I might skip or put I donât know.
As a reviewer I hope to get most decisions ârightâ but Iâm human and not perfect.
Vandalism shouldnât be outright rejected then?
If the work of art is considered vandalism to the owner, property owner, local authorities⌠then it is ineligible. Is the art has evolved from vandalism to be a welcomed work of art⌠then use your best judgment considering all the available information.
Thatâs very subjective and vague.
How long should I wait to see if a work of art will be welcomed by Local authorities?
Reviewing Wayspot nominations involves your good judgement. There is no single set of rules or person who can tell a community in black and white what places are important where others are not. Thatâs why there will always be some âgrey areaâ in our collective goal to map the most interesting local places. What really influences reviews is how content is presented to convince reviewers that a nomination supports Nianticâs mission and follows the rules around abuse, accuracy, and intent.
Niantic Wayfarer
âSubjective and vagueâ is part of the âgrey areaâ and sometimes it will just be like that, as much as I love rules and guidelines. I think Roliâs answer was as clear as this topic can be.
So reject vandalism?
But in these cases youâd probably want some supporting evidence if the artwork doesnât seem to have some intrinsic value. Else itâs just some paint daubed on a wall. [Citation needed] etc.
Which ultimately comes down to a subjective viewpoint of what is âjust paint daubed on a wallâ
This for example, chosen for obvious reasons is technically vandalism. I could say it has more artistic value than a Banksy since he uses stencils.
Both of their works are vandalism.
I realize youâre trying to help clarify a gray area, but I think it is often the case that vandalism in the form of graffiti goes unchecked for long periods of time simply because property owners, or if itâs public property, the public authorities canât keep up or donât have the resources to fix the things that have been vandalized.
Personally, I do think some sort of evidence that murals or street art Is sanctioned when itâs not entirely clear is helpful when submitting these types POIs. In the absence of that, sometimes things just arenât going to get accepted.
Yes⌠when reviewing we have to use our best judgement in the absence of evidence⌠but when submitting, including some sort of proof when available. In the instance of Banksy, im sure there would be news articles that interview the property owner etc.
All graffiti is temporary though, even the UKâs most famous PEAS or GIVE PEAS A CHANCE bridgeâŚ
(obviously not a valid wayspot but famous nonetheless)
Sometimes itâs difficult to tell a mural from graffiti, usually with a mural thereâs some supporting evidence. If you think the work is notable then supporting evidence is useful, but ultimately even the best known works are likely to vanish over time.
True, but few things arenât really.
Thats been there FOREVER hasnt it? Definitely not temporary (albeit might just be too hard to remove!)
It was there for a decade, gone now. But oddly enough I heard a police report referring to it as the âGive Peas a Chanceâ bridge just this week.
It is interesting how place names develop and stick.
Not far there is a road junction that until 35 years ago had a large timber merchant yard at it Roscoes. Everyone still refers to it as Roscoes Roundabout.
I so want an information board there 
During WW2 a local pub was used as co ordination place for air raid work etc and became known as the âwar officeâ it closed decades ago and was converted into flats but is still known by that name.
