It is proposed to use the tag leisure=graffiti_wall to walls or spots, which are designated for free public legal graffiti painting. There need to be evidence, that authorities or the landlord has given permission to legally draw graffiti.
This tag can be used on point, when the exact position and extend of the wall is not clear.
This tag can be preferably used on a way, describing the position of the wall.
This tag can be used on a relation, when there are multiple walls at a sign, which can be used.
Please discuss this proposal on its wiki talk page.
Relation seems suspicious unless it is a multipolygon with holes - I think instead multiple leisure=graffiti_wall should be members of a different kind of relation (site?)
You also need to specify whether a way should be a line or an area, and if both, area=yes or some other tag to distinguish.
For instance, you could specify that if mapped as a way, it should always also be tagged as a barrier=wall (optional area=yes).
While =drawing_space isn’t specific with “drawing”, there are legal graffiti spaces on ceilings (maybe not ground), pillars, bridges, tunnels, containers, buildings, other structures, and entire facilities, not only walls or wide surfaces
The existing documentation and use of graffiti= is unexpected and unintuitive for limiting to historical ones, but an attribute could still be graffiti:legal= to be obvious Key:graffiti - OpenStreetMap Wiki
My intention is to document a used value of leisure. So my first reasoning, was to take the used value, which is in my opinion self-explaining good enough.
I would rather later add kinds of graffiti_walls. So graffiti_wall=freestanding, (meaning booth sides can be painted) graffiti_wall=wall (a wall of a structure), graffiti_wall=ceiling (The ceiling of sth).
I was thinking about that. A graffiti_wall which is on the ceiling or bottom may be tagged area=yes.
Towards the legal misunderstandings. As I understand it: OSM is meant to be a map where one mostly can find where things are. The nuances of what is exactly allowed or not should still be checked by the map user. It is encouraged to give a link to a website, where the space and the rules are explained in detail. Or to give explenations in the description.
I was thinking about that. As I want to encourage to add descriptions, links and maybe names to the walls one would add these to all walls of a site. In Dresden there are sites, where the 6 pillars of a bridge are legal to draw graffiti on. I think that is not fun to maintain.
So I proposed the type=site, where at the relation the description, links and name is tagged to.
I like the idea, but I’d also want clarification on how to use this on existing ways. E.g. Way: 219033444 | OpenStreetMap this underpass is designated as a “graffiti tunnel” by the municipality.
From far away, normal users of the map will just see a normal wall and normal graffitis. And this is also all that they need for finding their way. They will not expect this to be a “leisure” topic. Therefore, the permission for everybody to legally paint graffitis onto the wall should be an add-on to the normal “artwork_type=graffiti” tag (not “artwork=graffiti” as stated on the proposal page).
How about tagging it with “graffiti=legal_wall” or “graffiti:type=legal_wall”? “Legal wall” is also the term used in the wikipedia article Legal wall - Wikipedia .
If the intent is to indicate who is legally allowed to draw graffiti in a particular space might it be worth formatting that as an access tag. Then you could have values like “designated”, “private”, “permit”, etc. But maybe that level of granularity is unnecessary. Certainly there should also be a way to just map the graffiti itself without any indication of its legal status.
this would seem strange because it is describing the legality in a tag that seems to describe the graffiti. Rather graffiti:legal=yes/no/maybe etc.
IMHO these are 2 distinct things: a place to make graffiti and the individual artwork on it.
Hi maptheworld, I thought about using the access tag, but my impression is that the access tag would indicate who is allowed to go to the graffiti and see it. So some other solution is needed.
Hi dieterdreist, if you put it that way then maybe the graffiti itself is only one aspect and the whole place, including the ground in front of the wall, is the ‘sports pitch’ for those who paint the graffiti onto the legal wall?
I suppport this approach (having 3 differently tagged such things near me ).
I don’t think access is required if it’s allowed for everyone (that is, it would imply access=yes). If it’s not public I would assume it’s probably better to use the tagging via artwork - it is somewhat natural to assume that artwork doesn’t change constantly which is the point of these graffiti walls.
Something like graffiti:legal=* (default could be assumed to be ‘yes’) would be good. Other options which come to mind could be e.g. informal=* or graffiti:designated=* or similar, to describe that it’s not explicitly designed but still used for this purpose.
Looking at this topic from a slightly different angle: I don’t like using the key “leisure” for a legal wall. According to the proposal, the key “leisure” has been chosen because a legal wall is mostly used by juveniles and for their enjoyment. Also, the proposal says to add “leisure=graffiti_wall” to an existing feature that has already been tagged as “tourism=artwork”. I don’t think that it is a good idea to put a single feature into two main name spaces. That everybody can paint onto the wall is just an additional aspect of the specific graffiti. And I think it is still a kind of artwork. If “tourism=artwork” is the accepted main tag for a graffiti, then it probably makes more sense to think about a specific combination of “tourism=artwork”+“artwork=graffiti”+“legal_wall=yes” (or some other specific tag that is an add-on to “tourism=artwork”+“artwork=graffiti”). Maybe make this more generic also for other kinds of art and define something like “artwork:changeable=public”? This would also allow tagging of more restrictive legal walls in the sense of “artwork:changeable=by_invitation”.
On my municipality’s website, graffiti walls are in the hierarchy under “culture and leisure” → “Youth, Organized activities, Volunteering” (which is a different branch of the “culture and leisure” hierarchy than where art galleries and such are.)
I would think that a graffiti wall is primarily a place of activity. Sure someone might stop and spectate, but that’s not why it exists. If a specific graffiti wall becomes a tourist destination, then maybe the tourism=artwork tags could be added to the graffiti wall.
To be clear, I meant creating a new access tag for this purpose, not literally just tagging access=yes|no. Maybe something like graffitiing=designated|permit|private|no to document the legal status (someone else proposed graffiti:legal=*), in combination with whatever tag gets used to map the wall/space/artwork itself.
Some municipalities offer spaces where graffiti artists can practice their art. Keep in mind that many of these graffiti, both in spaces provided for them and in other areas of the city, may end up disappearing quickly (sometimes within a few days or even hours), even if they are notable graffiti, so they should not be added to the map.
The intention of this proposal is to bring this places to the map but not as artworks but as what they are, some kind of leisure. In a way we want to map the canvas not the artworks.. ^^
Thanks for the wikipedia article! I added it to the proposal. I somehow missed it out.
I will have a look how it is mapped there. ^^
About the value name, I discussed the name in the section of the proposal. I think people from outside the graffiti scene do not know what legal walls are without context. So there need to be word “graffiti” in it.
Secondly we should take it easy, there are as of today 87 mapped. That’s a good start, inventing a new value would mean to change all of them. But if there is a majority which is ok with starting with something new, I’m open for anything containing the word graffiti. e.g. legal_graffiti_painting, legal_graffiti_wall, or
).