I would like to appeal the rejection of my removal request for the Wayspot “Schwarzer Shy Guy”.
The Wayspot represents graffiti painted on the exterior wall of a building in a small commercial area. I have attached several current photographs showing the Wayspot and the surrounding area.
The photographs show that graffiti and tags are currently widespread throughout this commercial area. Numerous walls and other surfaces have been painted or tagged, including other parts of the same building, utility structures and areas around the supermarket directly opposite the Wayspot.
In my view, the “Schwarzer Shy Guy” should therefore not be treated as established permanent public artwork simply because it is a more elaborate image than the surrounding tags. The wider context raises a significant question as to whether this is intended permanent artwork at all, rather than another piece of graffiti in an area currently affected by extensive tagging.
I therefore ask that the rejected removal request be reviewed again, taking the attached photographs and the wider context of the location into account.
I would not have approved this as art, but I also doubt if it meets removal criteria (especially for a gym, just after two even more dubious wayspots were approved)
wayspot with title 1 / 8 (50.667705,12.667966)
wayspot with title 3 / 8 (50.667647,12.667754)
These “two even more dubious wayspots” are there in streetview, but in a previous, vandalized state.
This new coloring is done by officials. I don’t know, but I guess the company behind that utility boxes did that after initiative of the town. Lots of the smaller utility boxes of the town got a sinilar design during the last year.
Further there are lots of other projects there, that are counter measures against vandalizing graffiti.
Everyone knows what the murals on utility boxes and containers are for, which is to brighten up the area and reduce unauthorised graffiti. That’s a given.
The problem is that people definitely do use AI to “create” murals on surfaces in order to get pokestops and gyms. There is absolutely no doubt about this happening around the world.
Providing pictures of approved wayspots is not evidence that the mural actually exists. What would provide proof is any of the following:
Part of the problem with this wayspot is the photo - it’s a ridiculously close-up photo with no context, made even worse when you see the entire structure and realise how much more could have been included.
Any wayspot photo like this is immediately suspicious:
Since we have to compare these two examples this Shy Guy Graffiti is in my oppinion more like number one. And also the reviewers.
Vandalism is clearly taggs and football stencils.
Everything else needs a bit more complex and careful considerations.
This Shy Guy Graffiti is now there for over a year.
During exact this time scale lots of counter measures against vandalizing graffiti happened, examples in my earlier post.
So I don’t know, whether this one is vandalism or a counter measure to cover something else up.
It’s there, it’s there for over a year. The community decided to accept it.
So why the heck is it enough, that now one guy shows up, drops only one argument in the style of guilt-by-association, and that’s enough to remove a wayspot?
It’s simply no argument. there are graffiti tags around there, but also the official and artful counter measures like the boxes with musical notes.
The problem is that different people have different opinions of what is “distinct / unique”.
Whether you accept it during review is one thing, but it shouldn’t be removed based on that simple framing here.
did it for the funny title. And it was instantly accepted despite that picture.
(for non-EU-people: Hardrock Hallelujah is the 2006 winner title of the eurovision song contest)
It wasn’t my point to prove these.
These wayspots weren’t touched by Nia/Scop although someone had a doubt here.
I wanted to use them as examples of the official counter measures of town/company/whatever against the vandalism, to work against OPs awful framing with graffiti tags.
I don’t think that is the case here, the wayspot was mis-placed in the roadway. The correction has placed it in to an already occupied cell. It is still showing on the Wayfarer Map so if it is no longer in game this will be due to the proximity rule (1 per cell).
If you have evidence that the new location is incorrect then you can show evidence of it’s correct location and get it moved again.
If it is now correct then it should never been in the game in the first place.
In regards to the Graffiti I use a very simplified method that works the majority of the time…
Authorised by authority / business owner = Mural = Acceptable
Unauthorised = Graffiti = Vandalism = Reject
There is a 3rd situation when Graffiti is “adopted” as Authorised after it has been placed, think “Banksy”. Personally I still believe it is still vandalism but once it is clear that the authority plans on keeping it then I understand it been acceptable here.
Regards the “Shy Guy” I would not have accepted but I am surprised that it was removed. Assume the member of staff agreed with the reporter that it fell in to the “Graffiti = Vandalism” bracket.
If you want to appeal it’s removal this is what you will need to prove against.
Zooming in on the photo the op provided, this is clearly falling into the Graffiti bucket and could not be legitimately argued to be a Mural. The removal is therefore correct and in line with Scopely Explore’s usual actions, since graffiti is strictly not eligible and therefore meets removal criteria.
Back in my more active days Nia didnt even remove wayspots of generic streetsigns, that were created by a bot fraud that approved everything in a special town, and rejected everything else in the whole country ….
So that whole situation here gets in a disgusting level.
It a damn Nintendo character as a graffiti between two supermarket parking areas.
Basically a good wayspot.
Proving here anything is nearly impossible.
If it‘s considered vandalism it will dissapear some day - remove it then, not now.
