I would like to ask for advice or assistance regarding an Upgraded Nomination that has been stuck in “In Voting” status for over 3 weeks (since July 24th, 2026).
Nomination Title: Mural De Arte Urbano Somos Alegría
Location: Santiago de Cali, Colombia
Status: In Voting (Upgraded)
Other local nominations submitted around the same date (and even later) have already been resolved, but this specific one seems stuck despite having an Upgrade applied.
Could this be due to a voting bottleneck or an issue with the decision flow in the region? I would appreciate any insight or if a Niantic staff member could check if there is any technical issue with this nomination.
Welcome. How long ago was it upgraded? Only wayfarer staff can tell exactly what happened. But in my opinion, its possible that community opinion might divided on this nomination or too many people choose skip.
Grafitti normally are not eligible. I am not sure if this is authorized mural or vandalism (i am leaning towards the latter)
When too many people unsure and choose skip, it will inevitably prolong the nomination process.
May I ask how reviewers should mark a nomination to flag it? Are we supposed to use the “Report” button and choose “Abuse” even if the description of the abuse rejection reason doesn’t match?
To flag a nomination as abuse during review, reviewers should choose the most relevant category available to report it. If the nomination doesn’t fall under any specific category, reviewers can select “Abuse.”
Que tipo de directrices infringió?? Quisiera saberlo para no caer de nuevo en algun error al momento de enviar otra nominación, la nominación en cuestión es un mural alusivo a la alegría de la comunidad.. (“Somos Alegría”)
I used to state 2 options but I am going to split it in to 3…
A: Authorised Mural. Authorised by business owner / Authority. Definitely Acceptable.
B: Good Quality Graffiti in a location that over years has shown that such art is tolerated. Maybe not authorised. Not on locations such as SFPRP (Single Family Private Residence Property) or Schools etc. This could be acceptable depending on local reviewers.
C: Graffiti. Tags etc. Illegal, Vandalism. or Those that meet “B” but are in unsuitable locations, Should be Rejected.
In your case this looks to be either A or B. It is down to the submitter to show evidence which it is.
I’m going with B or C, more likely C. The impression I get is a wall with a lot of graffiti on it, with this standing at as higher quality than the rest, but still not that special.
Lets say there was a wall that was constantly vandalised then the authorities ask an official group to cover and produce a Mural hoping this “may” reduce future vandalism then I would probably Accept with evidence.
Maybe I could have worded it better with “In this case if you believe this is either A or B. It is down to the submitter to show evidence which it is.” ?
It is not a vandalized wall, nor is it covering up any previous graffiti; it is not on private property but is located at a site where cultural activities constantly take place—which is why the mural is painted there—and it is clearly visible on Google Maps.
I’ve seen walls of graffiti where the graffiti is frequently changing, never removed, but very often high quality art, but still definitely graffiti not murals. This I would accept.
I would need to see the context before considering this like that. This photo alone is insufficient to see it as a cultural location/worth exploring.
This is why I have repeated that it is up to you to show evidence of this. Some people will say anything to get a wayspot so evidence that it meets criteria is essential.
Sometimes that is easy, a play park seen on Street View is obvious. Official Mural or Graffiti is not.
We are not saying that what you state isn’t true but that you do need evidence and so far you have not shown any.
%