Hello everyone I nominated two murals. They are on the same wall but they are two distinct artworks. The first one (Rash) got accepted but the second one (Roser) got rejected as duplicate. I tried nominating Roser again but now it gets automatiicaly rejected as duplicate. I also appealed with the attached note but this time it got rejected saying location does not have pedestrian access but there are house entrances nearby which shows this place is accessible.
You are fortunate to have got the first one accepted. It’s graffiti, so not obviously eligible, and it definitely does not have safe pedestrian access as you have to stand in the road.
The second one is easy to mark as duplicate - it’s on the same wall and part of the same art installation (in as much as you can call this an installation). The appeal result was correct.
I would walk away now before the first one gets removed.
I checked it and the tag is not vandalism. In vandalism part it says different number of names and styles added to it makes it vandalism. Since they are two different artworks and not overlapping they should be eligible as intentional street art.
For the pedestrian access this wall is not on a main street and since the whole street is used as parking spot and house access path the street is safe for pedestrian access.
Graffiti is vandalism, as it has not got approval. Murals normally have approval.
Graffiti can sometimes get de-facto approval, as it is there for years, is never removed and constantly gets redone. This can be eligible as a location, not for the individual art.
You cannot get past the clear lack of pedestrian access. No-one can stand at point zero with their eyes shut and headphones on without risking being hit by a vehicle.
Graffiti shows the street culture of the community and should not count as vandalism also the vandalism part in criteria clarification collection does not state graffiti is vandalism the added number of names makes it vandalism.
Personally i think it will be hard to convince people that its not vandalism. Other than that , it also may have issue with safe pedestrian access. I suggest you to reread wayfarer criteria before making further comment. Even if it got accepted, because its so close , its unlikely to appear in pokemon go anyway.
Hi, graffiti by definition is temporary and vandalism, and thus doesn’t meet criteria. The only type of graffiti that is eligible is legal walls, and even then, what is eligible in that case are the walls and not the individual pieces.
You had three wayspots accepted along this short stretch of wall and are complaining about the fourth one getting rejected. At least one of the wayspots was deliberately located incorrectly in order to drop it into an otherwise empty S2 L17 cell.
I checked it and in real life I saw different street art/graffiti/murals in worse conditons got accepted. Also when I search for these people (Rukus, OHB, Gesk) they are well known in the local street art community in Istanbul and create explore worthy locations as well as improve bland walls with colorful stylized street art. To add this is not just letters its a subgenre of traditional street art called throwie.
I am complaining about it getting wrongfully and automatically flagged as duplicate. I wanted to add the whole wall since they are all unique street art created by different people.
The entire wall would possibly be legitimate as a single wayspot if there was a sidewalk and there was a business (or empty plot) behind the wall.
However, the entire wall is unsafe to access as far as wayfarer is concerned, and the wall is almost certainly the boundary of single-family private residential property, so that is two immediate reasons for ineligibility.
Continuing to complain that you only have three ineligible wayspots instead of four is not helping you.
That is the problem you don’t know the area and street view/satellite is misleading. The wall is not on the boundary of single-family residential property. The trees and wall seperate the other street and the entrance next to wall is for another house not for the house behind for this wall.
For the unsafe access part its a small street mainly used for parking and the opposite side of the wall is for apartment entrances which indicates safe access
