Propiedad privada

[1970Marcelo]

• grafiti papa san anacleto
  Google Maps
• Santiago
• Chile

![1000066786|256x500]
(upload://nNI08spTrJ1JhhSaLPWOg8R5pG9.jpeg)

Dice que es una calle cerrada, propiedad privada pero no es asi, es una calle de facil acceso

• Additional Information (if any):

[paulingzubat]

Good day!

@1970Marcelo

![1000066786|256x500]
(upload://nNI08spTrJ1JhhSaLPWOg8R5pG9.jpeg)

It seems your photo has not yet uploaded.

@1970Marcelo

It says it’s a closed street, private property, but it’s not, it’s an easily accessible street.

The Google map pin provided directs me to rows of SFPRP. Refer to below:

@NianticTintino

Single-family private residential properties (SFPRP), farms, and K-12 (schools or facilities primarily focused for persons under 18 years of age) are ineligible. This includes the outer facing facade, fence of these locations, and property boundaries.

@1970Marcelo

Pope Saint Anacletus graffiti

It may also be that this graffiti can be considered as vandalism and therefore not eligible. In the absence of a photo, it is difficult to see if it is.

@NianticTintino

Vandalism

The street art pictured above may have initially been a good example, but due to the overwhelming number of names and different styles added to this piece, there is evidence to suggest it is not an intentional work of art and is therefore not eligible.

[1970Marcelo]

Ubicación
-33,451612, -70,770929

Para mi no es vandalismo, es de ingreso facil al ser una calle pública

[paulingzubat]

@1970Marcelo

it is easy to enter since it is a public street

That is true however the wall connected to the graffiti is SFPRP. The rejection for it includes the outer walls, even street-facing ones.

[cyndiepooh]

@1970Marcelo

-33.451612, -70.770929

This does appear to be on the property boundary of a single family private residential property:

Private Residences, Farmland & K-12

Single-family private residential properties (SFPRP), farms, and K-12 (schools or facilities primarily focused for persons under 18 years of age) are ineligible. This includes the outer facing facade, fence of these locations, and property boundaries. Objects in or upon apartment blocks, gated communities, or their shared spaces may be eligible assuming they otherwise meet criteria and are intended to be accessed by a community, even if not everyone. Communal spaces have the potential to be eli…

Even though you can access it from the sidewalk, it would still be ineligible.

[SlimboyFat71]

With Wayfarer we try and simplify the rules of Mural / Graffiti.

Mural: Authorised by the property owner or authorities, nothing is being hid. Usually found on official websites with acknowledgement from the artist(s).

Graffiti: Unauthorised.

It is down to the submitter to show evidence that the art is authorised.

The process can group what some would call “proper graffiti” with the vandalism type but Niantic have to be careful not to be promoting criminal acts so they use caution.

None of the above overrides the other criteria such as SFPRP or School Property etc.

[paulingzubat]

Some regard graffiti as an art form. It is easier to class the unauthorized things as vandalism directly. Some vandalism might not even fit as graffiti, just blotches on a wall. Vandalism.

[SlimboyFat71]

I think that we are in agreement.

Nobody is going to nominate and Title it “Vandalism - Blotch on a Wall”

If the submitter shows evidence that it is authorised I class it as a Mural and check for other criteria.

If no evidence then I class as Graffiti and Reject.

[DillionHarper]

It’s always the same with graffiti, but those who say it’s not valid, I assure you that there are also many in their cities and they don’t even report them because it’s not convenient for them, double standards.

[RoIi112]

As wayfarers reviewing and submitting we are bound to Niantics criteria and guidelines, or else we risk our accounts for submitting or approving ineligible things. We aren’t bound to report things, but many of us do to clean up the database.

[NianticLC]

Thanks for the appeal, @1970Marcelo. We have taken another look, but stand by our decision to remove the Wayspot in question.