Re: [OSM-talk] About OSM social implications and what can/should be displayed on the map (or not)

[Lester Caine]

On 29/06/18 16:27, Carlos Cámara wrote:
Second: The very foundations of OSM as a project are techno-political in 
terms that it was created to overcome the lack of certain geographical 
information about certain areas or topics. This is even more obvious in 
HOSM or the not-at-all-accidental use of open licenses from its very 
beginning.


Yes and No ... 'the map' is NOT the project ... the raw data is. I find 
it difficult to use the current style of the SAMPLE map provided simply 
because it gets the road colours wrong now. So I'm using a source of map 
tiles that use a more UK friendly colour set. The bottom line is that 
what is displayed on the map is already in conflict with many uses 
ignoring adding any additional censoring. What SHOULD be done is provide 
our own versions of the map for our own applications, as wikipedia is 
doing with names (although I can't see how to access them). Whether 
something has it's own icon is not a political decision - everything 
should have an icon - but the PRIORITY of displaying should be a 
non-political decision - not censorship!


Moving to a more interactive map would be a positive step, rather than 
the continual churn of 'views of what is important' on a single static 
map and I know the technology is there, just not the resources to 
generate it?


--
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk
Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] About OSM social implications and what can/should be displayed on the map (or not)

[Warin]

On 30/06/18 01:27, Carlos Cámara wrote:

Dear all,

After participating in this openstreetmap-carto issue 
 
discussing to create an icon for casinos in which I stated that they 
should not be highlighted with an icon due to their grave consequences 
derived from gambling addiction


Some one will want to ban places that sell alcohol (it is bad)
Some one will want to ban places that sell meat (it is bad)
Some one will want to ban places that sell fuel (it is bad)
Some one will want to ban roads (they are bad - encourages people to use 
cars - greenhouse gasses)

Some one will want to ban airports (they are  bad)
Some one will want to ban places that sell non halal food (it is bad)
Some one will want to ban places that sell non kosher food (it is bad)
Some one will want to ban places that sell paint(it is bad)
Some one will want to ban high rise places (they are  bad)
ban
ban
ban


Go buy yourself a blank sheet of paper. That is your map.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] About OSM social implications and what can/should be displayed on the map (or not)

[Maarten Deen]

On 2018-06-29 17:27, Carlos Cámara wrote:

Dear all,

After participating in this openstreetmap-carto issue [1] discussing
to create an icon for casinos in which I stated that they should not
be highlighted with an icon due to their grave consequences derived
from gambling addiction (there are plenty of scientific literature
about it),


I totally oppose this stance. If we start censoring casinos, why not 
censor brothels? Why not censor butchers? Why not censor churches and 
mosques? Why stop at that point that you propose because someone or 
another thinks he sits on a moral highground and thinks he can decide 
for others what they should see (or how they should behave)?

An attitude like that is wrong on so many levels.


First: Any map is also a political act in terms that the mappers
decide which information is displayed and which one is not, but also


This argument is wrong. Any single mapper may decide he does not want to 
add certain information because from his moral believes or ethical code 
he thinks it is wrong to have that in the map, but any other single 
mapper may decide he will add that information. And at that point it is 
not for that first mapper to delete that information.
You are proposing that if any single mapper should decide a certain 
piece of information should not be added, no one can.

The latter is a political standpoint. The former is not.


Second: The very foundations of OSM as a project are techno-political
in terms that it was created to overcome the lack of certain
geographical information about certain areas or topics. This is even
more obvious in HOSM or the not-at-all-accidental use of open licenses
from its very beginning.


What argument is this for not adding certain pieces of information from 
a moral reason?



Third: by creating the map the way we love, we are also creating the


I love a map that displays everything that is there. That includes 
casinos.



In order to overcome those matters (and if I am not wrong), so far the
position on this regards is to render everything on
openstreetmap-carto provided the following conditions: A) there is a
significant number of uses (don't know how much is "significant"), B)
someone creates an issue requesting for it, C) someone designs an icon
or a representation for it, D) someone implements it by creating a
Pull request that is merged into openstreetmap-carto project.

It seems a sensible approach as it tries to be both as objective as
possible and pragmatic but is not free from polemics: behind the
appearance of not taking part on the political debate, the truth is
that the resulting map has a strong Eurocentric and heteropatriarchal
perspective which may not take into account diversity either in the
world nor in OSM's community (which does not have to do with figures
about representativity). Or in other words, it is like European white
heterosexual males were doing a kind of digital colonization of the
world by imposing their rules simply because other groups are not
participating in the decision-making process and hence their
needs/opinions have not been taken into account.


Do you have examples why you think so? You say yourself, anyone having a 
proper reason or case for displaying anything and/or is willing to 
invest the time to do so, is welcome to.
How does this exclude the non-european, non-heterosexuals and non-male 
people from doing this?

And again: do you have examples for this?

And no: displaying something that a homosexual japanese lady does not 
want us to display is not an example.
It may be true that the map is as you describe because the people on the 
carto team are as you describe.
If this is about diversity, if this is an outcry that the carto team 
should have less eurocentric and heteropatriarchal people or view, than 
you should do something about that. And please do not propose a minimum 
percentage of gay asian women to be included in the carto team, that 
does not work. But if you are one, you are welcome to join that team, I 
suppose.


If the map were really eurocentric then why are not all place labels in 
latin script? (pet peeve)


Regards,
Maarten

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] About OSM social implications and what can/should be displayed on the map (or not)

[Daniel Koć]

W dniu 29.06.2018 o 17:27, Carlos Cámara pisze:

> This is to say that openstreetmap-carto is OSM's business card, which
> should serve as an entry point to the project to people from many
> conditions and hence, we have a responsibility in deciding what do we
> display and how we do it

Of course. There's a nice poem of polish Noblist about the matter:

"Even when you take to the woods,
you`re taking political steps
on political grounds."

https://poezja.org/wz/Szymborska_Wis%C5%82awa/1980/[in_english]_Children_of_Our_Age

But it works both ways - not taking part or not doing something is also
one's responsibility:

"Whatever you say reverberates,
whatever you don`t say speaks for itself.
So either way you`re talking politics."

> (I'm sure we are all more or less aware of that and there are great
> efforts and success in making it a great default renderer -I honestly
> love how fast it has improved in recent time).

Nice to hear that, thanks! Not as fast as I'd like and is possible, but
it needs more active people in my opinion - especially coders at the moment.

> In order to overcome those matters (and if I am not wrong), so far the
> position on this regards is to render everything on
> openstreetmap-carto provided the following conditions: A) there is a
> significant number of uses (don't know how much is "significant"), B)
> someone creates an issue requesting for it, C) someone designs an icon
> or a representation for it, D) someone implements it by creating a
> Pull request that is merged into openstreetmap-carto project.

This is more or less accurate, however B is usually the first step and
C+D is sometimes where it starts. A is usually taken into account
together with documentation, how the tag is used, if there are some
competing schemes and how many people have used that - all of which can
be a source of debate. Usually tags starting with 2000-5000 uses are
pretty much significant, if no other factors are undermining that.

>  Or in other words, it is like European white heterosexual males were
> doing a kind of digital colonization of the world by imposing their
> rules simply because other groups are not participating in the
> decision-making process and hence their needs/opinions have not been
> taken into account.

I would be happy to see more people engaged in decision making in OSM
Carto, unfortunately it seems that only few people want to participate
to some degree. And that is also political will to not engage or not
help, which is powerful tool shaping the reality - don't forget about
it. Even if we try to take it into account, how could we be sure that we
represent them right?

We were asking about writing systems and the response was minimal. We
have a Code of Conduct. We made project overview, tutorials and easier
to use installation system. Diversity is one of our goals. If you know
what more is needed to attract them, please let us know.

-- 
"My method is uncertain/ It's a mess but it's working" [F. Apple]



___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] About OSM social implications and what can/should be displayed on the map (or not)

[Mateusz Konieczny]

29. Jun 2018 17:27 by carlos.cam...@gmail.com :


> OSM does not take "any ethical stance and display the world as it is."
> It is for that reason that I want to raise that particular topic to OSM 
> community: 
> Is that true?




yes


 

>  and if so, should it be that way? 
>




yes




> My reasons for such statement are the following ones:
>
> First: Any map is also a political act in terms that the mappers decide which 
> information is displayed and which one is not,




Are you aware about difference between OSM database and maps made from OSM 
database?




 

> openstreetmap-carto




I am not convinced that this mailing list is a good place to discuss it, I 
think it belongs

in openstreetmap-carto bug tracker discussion.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] About OSM social implications and what can/should be displayed on the map (or not)

[Jan Martinec]

Hello,

TL;DR: I disagree with the proposal, OSM would fall apart without OTGR.

As for "we should change the world by creating the map", this is THE
antithesis to OpenStreetMap. As soon we depart from the On-The-Ground
Rule, and start mapping "what _I_think_ ought (not) exist", we become
OpenGeoFiction2 and perish in edit wars: opinion is unfalsifiable and
unverifiable, as opposed to physical features.

"Do not be angry at the mirror if you dislike what you see there", so to
speak. Fix the world and _then_ edit its map to reflect the new status,
sure; but breaking the mirror is the opposite of fixing, even if you
start doing it in tiny pieces and For the Greater Good. (I am aware that
the metaphor leaks - what gets mapped and what gets displayed can never
be a perfect mirror, bias will always be there - but the proposal seems
to suggest that we dispose of OTGR altogether.) As you note, there is no
clear consensus even on such things as boundaries.

Speaking of HOTOSM, that's a great counterexample, actually: many things
mapped in HOT are unlikable: slums, refugee camps, disaster outcomes.
Should we undisplay and suppress those, too, to make the map _seem_ nicer?

See also this official OSMF statement on disputed features; I think it's
applicable to most disputed elements:
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/w/images/d/d8/DisputedTerritoriesInformation.pdf
(If I may summarize: existence in map is not endorsement, physical
reality trumps wishes.)

Regards,
Jan "Piskvor" Martinec


Dne 06/29/18 v 17:50 James napsal(a):
> Not showing things on map to me is a form of censorship. I.E if a study
> finds that the sight of trees triggers suicide by hanging do we start
> removing all tree icons?
>
> This sets a precedent to what can and can't be displayed on map. There
> are some disputed boarders that are displayed differently in Google maps
> depending on where you view it
> from( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9ZMub2UrKU ) and the reasons are
> mostly political. The map should show "what is there" is my philosophy
>
> On Fri, Jun 29, 2018, 11:30 AM Carlos Cámara,  > wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
> After participating in this openstreetmap-carto issue
> 
> discussing to create an icon for casinos in which I stated that they
> should not be highlighted with an icon due to their grave
> consequences derived from gambling addiction (there are plenty of
> scientific literature about it), I was pointed out that OSM does not
> take "any ethical stance and display the world as it is."
>
> It is for that reason that I want to raise that particular topic to
> OSM community:
> Is that true? and if so, should it be that way?
>
> Long story short: although I am aware that it is a sensible and
> polemic issue, I think that such position does not make much sense
> in a project like OSM as I believe that OSM has a great social
> responsibility and opportunity as well. It is for that reason that
> we could be much more aware and sensitive to those matters and act
> accordingly.
>
> My reasons for such statement are the following ones:
>
> First: Any map is also a political act in terms that the mappers
> decide which information is displayed and which one is not, but also
> in the way we represent countries in terms of size and position
> (spoiler alert: countries are not like we represent them on the
> maps, and definitely are far different from the common web-mercator
> projection -more about that on this Wikipedia article
>  or, if even inthis
> chapter of West Wing TV series
> ). This is to say that
> it is impossible to represent reality as it is due to the fact that
> it is impossible to project the Earth onto a flat surface without
> errors/distortions.  OSM is no exception to that and, as such, it
> has a cultural and techno-political perspective/bias even if we are
> not aware of that. We should not forget about that (and leads us to
> the following point).
>
> Second: The very foundations of OSM as a project are
> techno-political in terms that it was created to overcome the lack
> of certain geographical information about certain areas or topics.
> This is even more obvious in HOSM or the not-at-all-accidental use
> of open licenses from its very beginning.
>
> Third: by creating the map the way we love, we are also creating the
> world as we would love to live in. Since most of OSM contributors
> decide to share their free time with other mappers around the world
> in making the best possible map, we could infer (yes, I acknowledge
> certain bias here which would require much more research) that we
> would love to live in a world where sharing was considered as a
> 

Re: [OSM-talk] About OSM social implications and what can/should be displayed on the map (or not)

[Richard Fairhurst]

Carlos Cámara wrote:
> Willing to read your points of view on that matter.

There is a whole lot I could say on this (writing "Eurocentric" in a
discussion about casinos seems really weird, and I'm not sure Native
Americans would thank you for it) but ultimately it's a little academic at
the moment.

At present we are prisoners of the technology we use. That is raster tiles
and they simply don't scale to offering multiple views of the world. So
unless you believe there is one true map (there isn't) then this issue is
always going to come up.

Moving to vector tiles will bring OSM's true potential front and centre: a
million different views of the one dataset.[1] The barrier for creating your
own map view of the world moves from a seriously difficult toolchain and an
arcane styling language, to a simple "bring your own style" with a friendly
WYSIWYG editor[2]. It's not even infeasible that, one day, individual OSM
users could save their own stylesheets somewhere on osm.org, fork and share
them with others. The possibilities are endless, and endlessly delightful.

That is where to focus our energies - not on mithering around the dying
technology of raster tiles.

Richard

[1] assuming a comprehensive selection of tags is encoded into the tiles at
large scale, but that's entirely plausible
[2] https://github.com/maputnik/editor



--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/General-Discussion-f5171242.html

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] About OSM social implications and what can/should be displayed on the map (or not)

[James]

Not showing things on map to me is a form of censorship. I.E if a study
finds that the sight of trees triggers suicide by hanging do we start
removing all tree icons?

This sets a precedent to what can and can't be displayed on map. There are
some disputed boarders that are displayed differently in Google maps
depending on where you view it from(
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9ZMub2UrKU ) and the reasons are mostly
political. The map should show "what is there" is my philosophy

On Fri, Jun 29, 2018, 11:30 AM Carlos Cámara, 
wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> After participating in this openstreetmap-carto issue
> 
> discussing to create an icon for casinos in which I stated that they should
> not be highlighted with an icon due to their grave consequences derived
> from gambling addiction (there are plenty of scientific literature about
> it), I was pointed out that OSM does not take "any ethical stance and
> display the world as it is."
>
> It is for that reason that I want to raise that particular topic to OSM
> community:
> Is that true? and if so, should it be that way?
>
> Long story short: although I am aware that it is a sensible and polemic
> issue, I think that such position does not make much sense in a project
> like OSM as I believe that OSM has a great social responsibility and
> opportunity as well. It is for that reason that we could be much more aware
> and sensitive to those matters and act accordingly.
>
> My reasons for such statement are the following ones:
>
> First: Any map is also a political act in terms that the mappers decide
> which information is displayed and which one is not, but also in the way we
> represent countries in terms of size and position (spoiler alert: countries
> are not like we represent them on the maps, and definitely are far
> different from the common web-mercator projection -more about that on this
> Wikipedia article  or, if
> even in this chapter of West Wing TV series
> ). This is to say that it is
> impossible to represent reality as it is due to the fact that it is
> impossible to project the Earth onto a flat surface without
> errors/distortions.  OSM is no exception to that and, as such, it has a
> cultural and techno-political perspective/bias even if we are not aware of
> that. We should not forget about that (and leads us to the following point).
>
> Second: The very foundations of OSM as a project are techno-political in
> terms that it was created to overcome the lack of certain geographical
> information about certain areas or topics. This is even more obvious in
> HOSM or the not-at-all-accidental use of open licenses from its very
> beginning.
>
> Third: by creating the map the way we love, we are also creating the world
> as we would love to live in. Since most of OSM contributors decide to share
> their free time with other mappers around the world in making the best
> possible map, we could infer (yes, I acknowledge certain bias here which
> would require much more research) that we would love to live in a world
> where sharing was considered as a positive value and change-driver for a
> better world which also promoted other positive values such as openness to
> information, collaboration, inclusiveness, communication and discussion
> (which, surprise, are OSM's pillars). Following that reasoning, I believe
> that OSM should set the grounds for a world aligned with their values by
> acting accordingly. It is doing so anyway, so why not to take some time to
> reflect on that instead of avoiding discussion based on the illusion that
> we are not taking part in this?
>
> Fourth: OSM has a complexity that makes it difficult for newcomers to
> wholly understand it (let alone to get involved). Part of these
> difficulties lie in the fact that OSM is, in fact, a complex ecosystem
> formed by a spatial database, a community, a map (or better, a series of
> maps), 3rd party apps... that cannot be appreciated at first sight, since
> many newcomers' first contact with OSM is the openstreetmap.org which, in
> fact, is even more complex than that as it is in turn based in several
> components such as nominatim, javascript libraries or renders such as
> carto, transport, HOSM...  What most of these people see there (and what
> they are likely looking for) is a map "similar to Google maps" yet
> different. This is to say that openstreetmap-carto is OSM's business card,
> which should serve as an entry point to the project to people from many
> conditions and hence, we have a responsibility in deciding what do we
> display and how we do it (I'm sure we are all more or less aware of that
> and there are great efforts and success in making it a great default
> renderer -I honestly love how fast it has improved in recent time).
>
> Unfortunately, even if someone completely agreed with all those points, I
> 

Re: [OSM-talk] About OSM social implications and what can/should be displayed on the map (or not)

[Michał Brzozowski]

Do keep in mind that none of the maintainers opposed (as far as I can see).
The comments are essentially from random people who may or may not be
closely involved in the project.

Michał

pt., 29 cze 2018, 17:30 użytkownik Carlos Cámara 
napisał:

> Dear all,
>
> After participating in this openstreetmap-carto issue
> 
> discussing to create an icon for casinos in which I stated that they should
> not be highlighted with an icon due to their grave consequences derived
> from gambling addiction (there are plenty of scientific literature about
> it), I was pointed out that OSM does not take "any ethical stance and
> display the world as it is."
>
> It is for that reason that I want to raise that particular topic to OSM
> community:
> Is that true? and if so, should it be that way?
>
> Long story short: although I am aware that it is a sensible and polemic
> issue, I think that such position does not make much sense in a project
> like OSM as I believe that OSM has a great social responsibility and
> opportunity as well. It is for that reason that we could be much more aware
> and sensitive to those matters and act accordingly.
>
> My reasons for such statement are the following ones:
>
> First: Any map is also a political act in terms that the mappers decide
> which information is displayed and which one is not, but also in the way we
> represent countries in terms of size and position (spoiler alert: countries
> are not like we represent them on the maps, and definitely are far
> different from the common web-mercator projection -more about that on this
> Wikipedia article  or, if
> even in this chapter of West Wing TV series
> ). This is to say that it is
> impossible to represent reality as it is due to the fact that it is
> impossible to project the Earth onto a flat surface without
> errors/distortions.  OSM is no exception to that and, as such, it has a
> cultural and techno-political perspective/bias even if we are not aware of
> that. We should not forget about that (and leads us to the following point).
>
> Second: The very foundations of OSM as a project are techno-political in
> terms that it was created to overcome the lack of certain geographical
> information about certain areas or topics. This is even more obvious in
> HOSM or the not-at-all-accidental use of open licenses from its very
> beginning.
>
> Third: by creating the map the way we love, we are also creating the world
> as we would love to live in. Since most of OSM contributors decide to share
> their free time with other mappers around the world in making the best
> possible map, we could infer (yes, I acknowledge certain bias here which
> would require much more research) that we would love to live in a world
> where sharing was considered as a positive value and change-driver for a
> better world which also promoted other positive values such as openness to
> information, collaboration, inclusiveness, communication and discussion
> (which, surprise, are OSM's pillars). Following that reasoning, I believe
> that OSM should set the grounds for a world aligned with their values by
> acting accordingly. It is doing so anyway, so why not to take some time to
> reflect on that instead of avoiding discussion based on the illusion that
> we are not taking part in this?
>
> Fourth: OSM has a complexity that makes it difficult for newcomers to
> wholly understand it (let alone to get involved). Part of these
> difficulties lie in the fact that OSM is, in fact, a complex ecosystem
> formed by a spatial database, a community, a map (or better, a series of
> maps), 3rd party apps... that cannot be appreciated at first sight, since
> many newcomers' first contact with OSM is the openstreetmap.org which, in
> fact, is even more complex than that as it is in turn based in several
> components such as nominatim, javascript libraries or renders such as
> carto, transport, HOSM...  What most of these people see there (and what
> they are likely looking for) is a map "similar to Google maps" yet
> different. This is to say that openstreetmap-carto is OSM's business card,
> which should serve as an entry point to the project to people from many
> conditions and hence, we have a responsibility in deciding what do we
> display and how we do it (I'm sure we are all more or less aware of that
> and there are great efforts and success in making it a great default
> renderer -I honestly love how fast it has improved in recent time).
>
> Unfortunately, even if someone completely agreed with all those points, I
> have to acknowledge that there is not a single and non-controversial
> position that can be taken from them. Even if we agreed with the fact that
> we have a social responsibility, several questions arise: Which are those
> polemic features that we are talking about? and, what should we do with
> 

[OSM-talk] About OSM social implications and what can/should be displayed on the map (or not)

[Carlos Cámara]

Dear all,

After participating in this openstreetmap-carto issue

discussing to create an icon for casinos in which I stated that they should
not be highlighted with an icon due to their grave consequences derived
from gambling addiction (there are plenty of scientific literature about
it), I was pointed out that OSM does not take "any ethical stance and
display the world as it is."

It is for that reason that I want to raise that particular topic to OSM
community:
Is that true? and if so, should it be that way?

Long story short: although I am aware that it is a sensible and polemic
issue, I think that such position does not make much sense in a project
like OSM as I believe that OSM has a great social responsibility and
opportunity as well. It is for that reason that we could be much more aware
and sensitive to those matters and act accordingly.

My reasons for such statement are the following ones:

First: Any map is also a political act in terms that the mappers decide
which information is displayed and which one is not, but also in the way we
represent countries in terms of size and position (spoiler alert: countries
are not like we represent them on the maps, and definitely are far
different from the common web-mercator projection -more about that on this
Wikipedia article  or, if
even in this chapter of West Wing TV series
). This is to say that it is
impossible to represent reality as it is due to the fact that it is
impossible to project the Earth onto a flat surface without
errors/distortions.  OSM is no exception to that and, as such, it has a
cultural and techno-political perspective/bias even if we are not aware of
that. We should not forget about that (and leads us to the following point).

Second: The very foundations of OSM as a project are techno-political in
terms that it was created to overcome the lack of certain geographical
information about certain areas or topics. This is even more obvious in
HOSM or the not-at-all-accidental use of open licenses from its very
beginning.

Third: by creating the map the way we love, we are also creating the world
as we would love to live in. Since most of OSM contributors decide to share
their free time with other mappers around the world in making the best
possible map, we could infer (yes, I acknowledge certain bias here which
would require much more research) that we would love to live in a world
where sharing was considered as a positive value and change-driver for a
better world which also promoted other positive values such as openness to
information, collaboration, inclusiveness, communication and discussion
(which, surprise, are OSM's pillars). Following that reasoning, I believe
that OSM should set the grounds for a world aligned with their values by
acting accordingly. It is doing so anyway, so why not to take some time to
reflect on that instead of avoiding discussion based on the illusion that
we are not taking part in this?

Fourth: OSM has a complexity that makes it difficult for newcomers to
wholly understand it (let alone to get involved). Part of these
difficulties lie in the fact that OSM is, in fact, a complex ecosystem
formed by a spatial database, a community, a map (or better, a series of
maps), 3rd party apps... that cannot be appreciated at first sight, since
many newcomers' first contact with OSM is the openstreetmap.org which, in
fact, is even more complex than that as it is in turn based in several
components such as nominatim, javascript libraries or renders such as
carto, transport, HOSM...  What most of these people see there (and what
they are likely looking for) is a map "similar to Google maps" yet
different. This is to say that openstreetmap-carto is OSM's business card,
which should serve as an entry point to the project to people from many
conditions and hence, we have a responsibility in deciding what do we
display and how we do it (I'm sure we are all more or less aware of that
and there are great efforts and success in making it a great default
renderer -I honestly love how fast it has improved in recent time).

Unfortunately, even if someone completely agreed with all those points, I
have to acknowledge that there is not a single and non-controversial
position that can be taken from them. Even if we agreed with the fact that
we have a social responsibility, several questions arise: Which are those
polemic features that we are talking about? and, what should we do with
them?

Let's start with the latter:

IMHO there are several options for dealing with polemic features, like the
following ones:

   1. Not display them at all on openstreetmap-carto (and possibly,
   creating a specific renderer for that purpose)
   2. Display them on openstreetmap-carto, but discretely, without
   highlighting them (eg: by only displaying its name, without an icon or with