Thanks, I appreciate that! I would invite everyone who has interest in the topic to give their opinion on the those 12 images - even if they don’t have a strong opinion (feel free to mention that too if you feel strongly or not!) - the more datapoints (especially from different cultures around the world), the more global picture we can build about what is meant by it globally, and what common ground there is.
It might be worth specifying what “local community” are meant there? Local graffiti artists community? Local OSM community? Local law-enforcement community ? As they all might differ. Or is that wording vague on purpose?
e.g. As a local OSM and wikimedia mapper, I might prefer to document some of them in those databases (artistic ones as well as unartistic ones with messages that I consider worth documenting for future). Yet documenting them by definition makes them more visible to municipality, which may thus detect and remove them sooner, which may be against the wishes of authors of those graffiti.
For example, in Zagreb (Croatia), there is municipality hosted dataset of graffiti on private and public spaces. It’s use is open, but likely wishes or graffiti artists are likely at odds with wishes of municipality in many (but not all) cases (e.g. those street_art are allowed as far as I can tell).
I am sure a member of the sprayer scene or a graffiti expert could add more details and probably the one or other argument why some of them do not qualify to be “real” graffiti, but I think OSM is primarily a geo database and one cannot expect every mapper to become an expert for graffiti or other artwork to be able to map such stuff.
Usually we try to accommodate both kind of mappers, the interested ones without specific domain knowledge, and the experts, i.e. a generic tag and refining tags for it.
If you don’t know what kind of streetart, you can still map that it’s artwork and “streetart” as type.
I agree with you and I’d see the result of such a voting as much more representative than the discussion between an handful of mappers arguing back and forth. Unfortunately it seems to be difficult to encourage the active community users to engage in such a vote. Probably it would help to put this into a new topic “Graffiti - Your vote is wanted!” or anything like this?
Perhaps we can create graffiti=* which would allow interested mappers to detail the type of graffiti (scribblings, letters_only, puppet_only, letters_with_puppets).
That would allow both for normal-people usage, as well as graffiti-expert-microdetail usage, as well as interested parties to add extra detail to original taggings (so municipality can filter on graffiti=scribblings for their re-painting efforts for example)?
And some other like graffiti:technique=* for specifying stencil, can_spray, airbrush, roller, chalk… ?
BTW I’ve just found about graffiti:tag=* and linked it to the artwork_type=graffiti wiki. (if someone more knowledgable in its use wants to describe and create proper page for it, that would be great)
? As they all might differ. Or is that wording vague on purpose?
I agree with you and I’d see the result of such a voting as much more representative than the discussion between an handful of mappers arguing back and forth. Unfortunately it seems to be difficult to encourage the active community users to engage in such a vote. Probably it would help to put this into a new topic “Graffiti - Your vote is wanted!” or anything like this?