[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - relation type=person
Hi all, Within 2 weeks, I discovered the "person" relation on this ML and found another (local) thread questioning the pertinence of this relation in OSM. Because an OSM relation collecting all information about a "person" is not something obvious for me and this idea has never been really discussed globally, I moved the wiki page back as a proposal and would like to open a vote about this and get your feedback here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Relation:person#Voting Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - relation type=person
OK, so I wasn't invloved in creating this proposal, but as a part of Polish community I want to add few words about this. The idea was to reflect, the best we can, situation with graves. I think most of us agree, that we should separate information about grave itself (type, material, address) and people inside - we also don't add eg. birth date to monuments of famous people. So what choice do we have? We can add standard tags to grave node (but as I said, it rather should be avoided), but things are going nasty, when we have 5 people in one grave. Tags semicolon-separated? Pure nightmare to edit and easy to break it, when we want to add more than just peoples' names. A lot of people mentioned Wikidata. Do you know the rules of Wikidata? There are notability rules[1], so it's simply not possible to store information about every person there. Here you have real example, grave with three people: http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1943454485 https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cmentarz_Rakowicki_Grob_Dietla.jpg (photo) http://osmtools.org/groby/#lat=50.07499&lon=19.95284&z=18 (custom data browser) I will be more than happy to find better solution to map graves like this not using relations. Comments, that this is 'crazy' is actually not really nice... [1] https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Notability Cheers, Paweł 2014-10-13 12:21 GMT+02:00 Pieren : > Hi all, > > Within 2 weeks, I discovered the "person" relation on this ML and > found another (local) thread questioning the pertinence of this > relation in OSM. Because an OSM relation collecting all information > about a "person" is not something obvious for me and this idea has > never been really discussed globally, I moved the wiki page back as a > proposal and would like to open a vote about this and get your > feedback here: > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Relation:person#Voting > > Pieren > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- *Paweł Marynowski* user:Yarl Stowarzyszenie OpenStreetMap Polska http://osm.org.pl/ http://fb.com/osmpolska/ ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - relation type=person
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 6:55 PM, Paweł Marynowski wrote: > The idea was to reflect, the best we can, situation with graves. This is not clear in the proposal. It's much more than graves. Birthday, family, description, etc. If you check examples, it is reused to add every details of a person live (memorial, named streets) > A lot of people mentioned Wikidata. Do you know the rules of Wikidata? There > are notability rules[1], so it's simply not possible to store information > about every person there. This is another question but not about this relation. We have to be careful about creating a database of named people (and their relationship) when they are not celebrities. Even for dead people, it can be conditioned to local legislation. > I will be more than happy to find better solution to map graves like this > not using relations. Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - relation type=person
2014-10-13 19:43 GMT+02:00 Pieren : > On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 6:55 PM, Paweł Marynowski > wrote: > > > The idea was to reflect, the best we can, situation with graves. > > This is not clear in the proposal. It's much more than graves. > Birthday, family, description, etc. If you check examples, it is > reused to add every details of a person live (memorial, named streets) Yes, it's not in proposal. I bet no one asked author about intentions. > > A lot of people mentioned Wikidata. Do you know the rules of Wikidata? > There > > are notability rules[1], so it's simply not possible to store information > > about every person there. > > This is another question but not about this relation. We have to be > careful about creating a database of named people (and their > relationship) when they are not celebrities. Even for dead people, it > can be conditioned to local legislation. Sure. We can drop information about relationship (it's probably not even used). But what we are having is data from public space, I doubt there will we any problems. But maybe British law is really harsh, I don't know. -- *Paweł Marynowski* user:Yarl Stowarzyszenie OpenStreetMap Polska http://osm.org.pl/ http://fb.com/osmpolska/ ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - relation type=person
I think OSM isn't a place for this. Number of the grave should be enough, and naming people in the grave (if they are not famous) looks like data for other databases. What are other uses for this relation type? Home of a person, workplace of a person, current location of a person? 2014-10-13 21:49 GMT+02:00 Paweł Marynowski : > 2014-10-13 19:43 GMT+02:00 Pieren : > >> On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 6:55 PM, Paweł Marynowski >> wrote: >> >> > The idea was to reflect, the best we can, situation with graves. >> >> This is not clear in the proposal. It's much more than graves. >> Birthday, family, description, etc. If you check examples, it is >> reused to add every details of a person live (memorial, named streets) > > > Yes, it's not in proposal. I bet no one asked author about intentions. > > >> > A lot of people mentioned Wikidata. Do you know the rules of Wikidata? >> There >> > are notability rules[1], so it's simply not possible to store >> information >> > about every person there. >> >> This is another question but not about this relation. We have to be >> careful about creating a database of named people (and their >> relationship) when they are not celebrities. Even for dead people, it >> can be conditioned to local legislation. > > > Sure. We can drop information about relationship (it's probably not even > used). But what we are having is data from public space, I doubt there will > we any problems. But maybe British law is really harsh, I don't know. > > -- > > *Paweł Marynowski* > > user:Yarl > > > Stowarzyszenie OpenStreetMap Polska > > http://osm.org.pl/ > > http://fb.com/osmpolska/ > > > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - relation type=person
W dniu 13.10.2014 23:04, Janko Mihelić pisze: > Number of the grave should be enough, and naming people in the grave Number of grave? What do you mean? Number of grave is not visible on the grave. What if there are several people in the grave (with different names)? Semicolons? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - relation type=person
2014-10-13 23:24 GMT+02:00 Zbigniew Czernik : > > What if there are several people in the grave (with different names)? > Semicolons? > I think OSM shouldn't have names of people in the grave. What you are saying is that, when OSM database is complete, we should have one relation for every person on the planet, living or dead. That doesn't sound right. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - relation type=person
On Tue, 2014-10-14 at 13:51 +0200, Janko Mihelić wrote: > 2014-10-13 23:24 GMT+02:00 Zbigniew Czernik > : > > What if there are several people in the grave (with different > names)? > Semicolons? > > > I think OSM shouldn't have names of people in the grave. If you don't put the names in OSM what do you propose? Phil (trigpoint) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - relation type=person
2014-10-14 13:55 GMT+02:00 Philip Barnes : > > If you don't put the names in OSM what do you propose? > > Phil (trigpoint) > I think we should have notability, like Wikipedia. I have been using buried:wikidata=*, and if someone can't get in Wikidata, then I think the same should apply with OSM. If you want all the names, then cross reference OSM to a local graveyard database. I can agree with buried:name=x;y;z. Having relations for people seems unreasonable. But this is a question for the community to decide. I vote -1 for all people in OSM database. Janko ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - relation type=person
Hi! I've noticed today there is an epic voting battle on the fields of wiki. Hundreds of mappers came to state their disapproval of person relation type. I wonder how many of them actually mapped one, or even seen such relations. I found some of them in 2011, and posted an entry in SHTOSM about such relations. After at least three years, this proposal is not about new relation type, and you should understand this. There are 1648 relations of type=person already in the database. It's #17 in the taginfo, it has a JOSM plugin and probably some related websites. The proposal is basically about documenting a relation type. It either can be found in the wiki, or not. Nobody here has the power of removing all such relations from the database. Are mappers who add it allowed to document what they are doing? Right now it seems the majority of voters thinks otherwise. Some say, you cannot make something appear in the database just by passing proposals in the wiki. You should do some mapping first. Well, poles have been mapping for 4 years. Is it enough? Or should they have waited another 4 years, so there are 10k relations of this type? It is a part of OpenStreetMap, whether you like it or not. It won't go away if you vote "no" on the proposal, and there won't be less such relations added. So this is not about a new type. This is about documenting something that has been mapped for years. And now, this far into mapping "persons" in OSM, you should not prevent documenting established relation types, but help document them better. IZ ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - relation type=person
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 2:58 PM, Ilya Zverev wrote: > Hi! I've noticed today there is an epic voting battle on the fields of > wiki. Hundreds of mappers came to state their disapproval of person > relation type. I wonder how many of them actually mapped one, or even > seen such relations. I found some of them in 2011, and posted an entry > in SHTOSM about such relations. After at least three years, this > proposal is not about new relation type, and you should understand > this. Well, they are plenty of tags in OSM that nobody has ever heard excepted his creator ... It's not because we don't use a tag that we cannot give an opinion. And I cannot remember any public discussion about such 'person' relation type, at least on the international lists which could explain why it is coming under the spotlight only today. > There are 1648 relations of type=person already in the database. But if I believe some feedbacks, most of them have been created by only three contributors which is tempering the stats. > The proposal is basically about documenting a relation type. > It either can be found in the wiki, or not. Nobody here has the power > of removing all such relations from the database. The database is the result of our consensus. Of course anyone has the power to add any thing but others have the same equal power to remove them. (The question is more about making a mass insert or a mass delete). If I find personal data on my own family in OSM, I will delete them immediatly without any permission. > Some say, you cannot make something appear in the database just by > passing proposals in the wiki. You should do some mapping first. You can add new tags directly in the database. And you can write anything in the wiki. But it does not mean that the whole community will accept your idea. Some might, some might not, most will ignore you. This proposal is questionning the limits of OSM, it is not really related to some physical element on the ground and is about privacy. > Well, > poles have been mapping for 4 years. Is it enough? Or should they have > waited another 4 years, so there are 10k relations of this type? It is > a part of OpenStreetMap, whether you like it or not. It won't go away > if you vote "no" on the proposal, and there won't be less such > relations added. So this is not about a new type. This is about > documenting something that has been mapped for years. But if the "vote" (I prefer "feedback") is showing that a significant part of the community does not like the idea, then you cannot refuse that they will delete one of such relations when they meet one of them. (mass deletion has to be treated differently) > And now, this far into mapping "persons" in OSM, you should not > prevent documenting established relation types, but help document them > better. In one way, you say it is already widely used and in the other way, you admit it could be better documented. I will show you where we have problems in the proposal and why a "vote" process is sometimes better than simply enforcing an idea. I copy the description here: "The main purpose of this type=person relation is to link (bind) different objects describing a person in the data base (such as grave, memorial place). " Here clearly, the graves and memorials are mentionned as examples. The relation could be used for everything related to a person and we find now such relations linking e.g. a grave with all streets using that person name. First mistake : it has not been strictly limited to graves and memorials. "That kind of relation is meant to describe dead persons. For a living people that kind of relations should be created only if it is reasonable. " Second mistake : it has not been strictly limited to dead people. It's really encouraging contributors to use this relation for everything related to a person. "Let's assume that good reason for creating that relations is "encyclopedity", that means existing of article about a person on Wikipedia. " Third mistake : It is not strictly reserved for "notable" people and can be used to name all graves in a cemetery (which might be forbiden in some countries). Privacy is never mentionned. To solve this, you could enforce a link to wikipedia because they are already an "encyclopedia" and check people notability (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_%28people%29). And once you create a link to wikipedia (or wikidata), you don't need the relation anymore- Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - relation type=person
On 13/10/2014, Janko Mihelić wrote: > I think OSM isn't a place for this. Number of the grave should be enough, > and naming people in the grave (if they are not famous) looks like data for > other databases. What are other uses for this relation type? Home of a > person, workplace of a person, current location of a person? While I'm against the relation as it is curently described in the wiki, I think that "who is in which tomb" is information that does belong in OSM, and that a person relation is often the right way to tag that (mostly to cater for multi-tenancy tombs; a simpler tagging schema on the tomb itself should also be usable. Like we use mulipolygon relations only when needed). Finding the tomb you want in a cemetery is *hard* and I'd love to be able to use OSM for it (probably via a specialized smartphone app). A particular tomb is like any POI, OSM should enable me to find it. Not all cemeteries are well organised enough to have grave or even row numbers. This is not only about noteworthy people either, one should be able to map a cemetery exhaustively. On the other hand, the current wiki proposal is ridiculous, in that it tries to support extended genealogy data (birth/death place/date, children, religion, etc) which really doesn't belong in OSM, because it is more about the people than the place. Even the suggestion of memorials seems ill-advised: you dont want to put all the Churchill monuments in a relation, and you don't want to have the war remembrance monuments (In France there's one in pretty much every village) belonging to 100s of relations. Maybe the noteworthyness criteria saves us here, I'm not sure. That said, looking at taginfo[1], the relation doesn't seem to be misused in practice. 79% tombs, 15% memorials, 4% named_in_honor (not documented and doesn't make sense to me: the *person* is named in honor of somebody else ??), and the rest is anectotal. So it's just the wiki page that is silly flamebait, actual usage is fine :) [1]:http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/relations/person#roles ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - relation type=person
> On Oct 14, 2014, at 9:39 PM, Janko Mihelić wrote: > > I think we should have notability, like Wikipedia. Every time I mention "importance" or similar, everyone gets in a huff, as they think that it will start an edit war or something. We trust mappers to do everything, and make it "local", but never to mark what's important (except for, you know, road levels, and where they go and where they intersect) but having some kind of opinion based tag, though verifiable by other local mappers, is not allowed. For some reason. So things that should be rendered at zoom level 9 - like prominent or notable peaks, and things that should be rendered at very high zoom levels - like the tens of thousands of little named hills just in my area of japan, get rendered in a confusing soup of triangles. Because making that decision is "unverifiable", so we have to let the map be shitty for the sake of the tagging, which seems really backwards. Making a good map is about choosing what is important to be shown at what zoom, and Unless there are varying levels of tags, then we rely on the mapper simply to not tag things to avoid confusion. Which seems counterproductive. I imagine the "landmark" tag is as close as we got. Javbw ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - relation type=person
On 14/10/2014, Pieren wrote: > Third mistake : It is not strictly reserved for "notable" people and > can be used to name all graves in a cemetery (which might be forbiden > in some countries). Privacy is never mentionned. To solve this, you > could enforce a link to wikipedia because they are already an > "encyclopedia" and check people notability > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_%28people%29). And > once you create a link to wikipedia (or wikidata), you don't need the > relation anymore- I'm wondering about this argument. How does maping information that publicly available (names on tombstones) constitute a privacy breach ? In many (most ?) countries, the birth and death registers are publicly available in the local public office. Genealogists trade data files on the internet as if they were TV series. If there's a law in some country preventing that kind of information-gathering, I feel it's standing on pretty thin ground. The noteworthyness issue is independant of the privacy question. And as said in another mail, I don't think that only noteworty tombs should be mapped. If OSM can route me from the townhall to my house, it should also route me from Princess Diana's tomb to my grand-father's. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - relation type=person
On 2014-10-14 at 23:54:09 +0200, moltonel 3x Combo wrote: > I'm wondering about this argument. How does maping information that > publicly available (names on tombstones) constitute a privacy breach ? > In many (most ?) countries, the birth and death registers are publicly > available in the local public office. Genealogists trade data files on > the internet as if they were TV series. If there's a law in some > country preventing that kind of information-gathering, I feel it's > standing on pretty thin ground. At least in Italy, access to the birth and death registers are restricted to the person and their immediate relatives, at least for the living and IIRC the recently dead. In theory access is public for old data, altough I don't remember the exact cryterion. -- Elena ``of Valhalla'' ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - relation type=person
Just a quick note: 2014-10-14 21:19 GMT+02:00 Pieren : > If I find personal data on my own family in OSM, I will > delete them immediatly without any permission. > I guess you wanted to write "asking anyone for permission" instead of "permission". You don't have to ask for permission, because you simply do not need one! This is something we should keep in mind every time someone wants to add personal data. For dead people it might be somehow "ok" (although I myself would never do that), but for living people it is a complete No-go and - depending on the data - will be illegal in many countries. My two cents: * Data that might be ok: name of the architect of a building, name of someone famous on his/her house of birth (if it is written on the building), ... * Data that is never ok: about living, ordinary people - never. Best regards, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - relation type=person
2014-10-14 23:31 GMT+02:00 moltonel 3x Combo : > I think that "who is in which tomb" is information that does > belong in OSM. > > Finding the tomb you want in a cemetery is *hard* and I'd love to be > able to use OSM for it (probably via a specialized smartphone app). A > particular tomb is like any POI, OSM should enable me to find it. Not > all cemeteries are well organised enough to have grave or even row > numbers. This is not only about noteworthy people either, one should > be able to map a cemetery exhaustively. > Simple question: why? If those are relatives of you, you should know where they are buried. If not, you should not care. Really not. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - relation type=person
I was thinking the same until I though about all those war cemeteries of WO I and WO II. You do not necessarily know where your relative is buried on such a cemetery. But this could be handled with a simple "inscription" tag, not need for a relation. On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 11:19 AM, Martin Vonwald wrote: > > 2014-10-14 23:31 GMT+02:00 moltonel 3x Combo : > >> I think that "who is in which tomb" is information that does >> belong in OSM. >> >> Finding the tomb you want in a cemetery is *hard* and I'd love to be >> able to use OSM for it (probably via a specialized smartphone app). A >> particular tomb is like any POI, OSM should enable me to find it. Not >> all cemeteries are well organised enough to have grave or even row >> numbers. This is not only about noteworthy people either, one should >> be able to map a cemetery exhaustively. >> > > Simple question: why? > > If those are relatives of you, you should know where they are buried. If > not, you should not care. Really not. > > > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - relation type=person
On Wed, 2014-10-15 at 11:19 +0200, Martin Vonwald wrote: > > 2014-10-14 23:31 GMT+02:00 moltonel 3x Combo : > I think that "who is in which tomb" is information that does > belong in OSM. > > Finding the tomb you want in a cemetery is *hard* and I'd love > to be > able to use OSM for it (probably via a specialized smartphone > app). A > particular tomb is like any POI, OSM should enable me to find > it. Not > all cemeteries are well organised enough to have grave or even > row > numbers. This is not only about noteworthy people either, one > should > be able to map a cemetery exhaustively. > > > Simple question: why? > > > If those are relatives of you, you should know where they are buried. > If not, you should not care. Really not. > > Genealogy, tracing family history is big business. Many people do this and can be charged large amounts of money for such information, that is public in that it is written and visible in a public place. A example perfect verifiable data that belongs in OSM. I may know where relatives who have died within my lifetime are buried, I can possibly go back a bit further with information from older living relatives but that is only likely to take me to the right cemetery/churchyard. Relatives from earlier times take much more research and having a free and open source of this information can only benefit many people who are searching for relatives from earlier times. Phil (trigpoint) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - relation type=person
On Wed, 15 Oct 2014, Martin Vonwald wrote: > 2014-10-14 23:31 GMT+02:00 moltonel 3x Combo : > I think that "who is in which tomb" is information that does > belong in OSM. > > Finding the tomb you want in a cemetery is *hard* and I'd love > to be > able to use OSM for it (probably via a specialized smartphone > app). A > particular tomb is like any POI, OSM should enable me to find > it. Not > all cemeteries are well organised enough to have grave or even > row > numbers. This is not only about noteworthy people either, one > should > be able to map a cemetery exhaustively. > > > Simple question: why? > > If those are relatives of you, you should know where they are buried. If > not, you should not care. Really not. Some relatives are more distant than others. Not that it would interest me personally to find some distant relative's grave, but I've been on multiple occassions on with somebody who has been looking for a grave of a relative "that is supposed to be somewhere here". Clearly they didn't known where that relative was buried. Often the search even terminates without success because there are simply too many graves to look at. -- i. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - relation type=person
On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 11:34 AM, Ilpo Järvinen wrote: > Not that it would interest me personally to find some distant relative's > grave, but I've been on multiple occassions on with somebody who has been > looking for a grave of a relative "that is supposed to be somewhere here". > Clearly they didn't known where that relative was buried. Often the search > even terminates without success because there are simply too many graves > to look at. We could have the same discussion about names on appartments entries or mailboxes. Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - relation type=person
On Wed, 2014-10-15 at 12:04 +0200, Pieren wrote: > On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 11:34 AM, Ilpo Järvinen > wrote: > > > Not that it would interest me personally to find some distant relative's > > grave, but I've been on multiple occassions on with somebody who has been > > looking for a grave of a relative "that is supposed to be somewhere here". > > Clearly they didn't known where that relative was buried. Often the search > > even terminates without success because there are simply too many graves > > to look at. > > We could have the same discussion about names on appartments entries > or mailboxes. > Having your name on your front door or mailbox is a very bad idea. They give cold callers a foot in the door if they are able to address you by name. Private addresses have numbers so there is no need to have your name in public. Phil (trigpoint) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - relation type=person
On Wed, 15 Oct 2014, Pieren wrote: > On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 11:34 AM, Ilpo Järvinen > wrote: > > > Not that it would interest me personally to find some distant relative's > > grave, but I've been on multiple occassions on with somebody who has been > > looking for a grave of a relative "that is supposed to be somewhere here". > > Clearly they didn't known where that relative was buried. Often the search > > even terminates without success because there are simply too many graves > > to look at. > > We could have the same discussion about names on appartments entries > or mailboxes. True. But I only answered to the "Why wouldn't somebody know the grave location" question you chose to carefully leave out :-) and also pointed out that this is not an imaginary scenario. And, btw, I've not really had similar searches with living people apartments as with graves but perhaps it's different with you. -- i.___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - relation, type=person
On 15/10/2014 8:27 PM, tagging-requ...@openstreetmap.org wrote: Message: 2 Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2014 23:54:09 +0200 From: moltonel 3x Combo To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - relation type=person Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On 14/10/2014, Pieren wrote: Third mistake : It is not strictly reserved for "notable" people and can be used to name all graves in a cemetery (which might be forbiden in some countries). Privacy is never mentionned. To solve this, you could enforce a link to wikipedia because they are already an "encyclopedia" and check people notability (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_%28people%29). And once you create a link to wikipedia (or wikidata), you don't need the relation anymore- I'm wondering about this argument. How does maping information that publicly available (names on tombstones) constitute a privacy breach ? In many (most ?) countries, the birth and death registers are publicly available in the local public office. Genealogists trade data files on the internet as if they were TV series. If there's a law in some country preventing that kind of information-gathering, I feel it's standing on pretty thin ground. Genealogists will not (or should that be 'should not'?) trade data on living people .. unless the receiver is related. Most countries have restrictions on birth, death and marriage records, usually time related ... e.g. births over 100 years ago publicly avalible, otherwise for relatives only. This is in order to stop identy fraud. People looking for living relatives aproaching genealogists will usually be refered elsewhere .. e.g. Salvation Army, they will aproach the living relative/s and see if they are intreasted. Most grave sights have a registar .. that tells you where a particular person is burried. Some have it on the web, you put in a persons name and the location is given .. possibly with a map. There are web sites that alow searches for a particular person .. sometimes even just a surname, '/BillionGraves/','Find A Grave' for example. They would be my first port of call if looking for someones' grave, not OSM. I've no objection to the data going into OSM, but is it worthwhile when the above sites have the data in a searchable form? -- I've been tracing my faimly tree .. that is how I know this stuff first hand... over 1,000 people and dates back to 1650 ... so far. Not many 'living' on it! ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - relation type=person
On 15/10/2014, Martin Vonwald wrote: > 2014-10-14 23:31 GMT+02:00 moltonel 3x Combo : >> Finding the tomb you want in a cemetery is *hard* and I'd love to be >> able to use OSM for it (probably via a specialized smartphone app). A >> particular tomb is like any POI, OSM should enable me to find it. Not >> all cemeteries are well organised enough to have grave or even row >> numbers. This is not only about noteworthy people either, one should >> be able to map a cemetery exhaustively. >> > > Simple question: why? > > If those are relatives of you, you should know where they are buried. If > not, you should not care. Really not. True personal story: I wanted to visit my grandfather's grave but never found it in the cemetery. My memory of the burial was lacking, there was no on-site map, I'm not very comfortable talking with that side of the familly, and it was only a serendipitous visit. In my experience, on-site cemetery maps are rare, but I'm sure it differs from one country to the next. Of course there's also the case of famous people's graves being visited by lots of non-relatives, like many in the "Cimetière Père Lachaise" in Paris, but that's another story. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - relation type=person
On 15/10/2014, Pieren wrote: > On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 11:34 AM, Ilpo Järvinen > wrote: > >> Not that it would interest me personally to find some distant relative's >> grave, but I've been on multiple occassions on with somebody who has been >> looking for a grave of a relative "that is supposed to be somewhere here". >> Clearly they didn't known where that relative was buried. Often the search >> even terminates without success because there are simply too many graves >> to look at. > > We could have the same discussion about names on appartments entries > or mailboxes. It's very different for living people: * The privacy issue is much bigger * If you've got a reason to visit somebody, you can certainly contact hin to know his whereabouts * We have this neat concept of "house numbers" and "street names" to express an address, which often cannot be used in cemeteries * People tend to change appartments much more often than they change graves ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - relation type=person
We are going a bit offtopic, so I propose restart of relation description. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Relation:person_(rewrite) Simple story: for graves only, for dead people only, no genealogy, no relatives, just data from tombstone. Please edit and add comments. -- *Paweł Marynowski* user:Yarl Stowarzyszenie OpenStreetMap Polska http://osm.org.pl/ http://fb.com/osmpolska/ ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - relation, type=person
2014-10-15 12:57 GMT+02:00 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>: > hird mistake : It is not strictly reserved for "notable" people and > can be used to name all graves in a cemetery (which might be forbiden > in some countries). Privacy is never mentionned. To solve this, you > could enforce a link to wikipedia because they are already an > "encyclopedia" and check people notability > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_%28people%29). And > once you create a link to wikipedia (or wikidata), you don't need the > relation anymore- > > apart from the question whether the relation is or isn't a good idea, I wanted to point out that dead people do not have any privacy rights or other personal rights (at least not in the jurisdictions I am aware of). cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - relation type=person
2014-10-14 14:39 GMT+02:00 Janko Mihelić : > I think we should have notability, like Wikipedia. I have been using > buried:wikidata=*, and if someone can't get in Wikidata, then I think the > same should apply with OSM I believe requiring "notability" is not necessary, at least not as long as we are talking about people entering this info manually and not about imports. I would really not feel comfortable having others (here Wikidata) decide what belongs into our database and what doesn't. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
