Re: [OSM-talk] Danger zone for pedestrians

[Richard]

On Mon, Mar 05, 2018 at 01:35:41PM +, Andy Townsend wrote:
> On 05/03/2018 11:49, Richard wrote:
> >this one problem could be (somewhat) solved by conditional restrictions,
> 
> No, this is not an access restriction - people are allowed to go there
> whenever they like; it might just not be advisable.

should have been more precise, the syntax defined in that wiki page
could be easily reused for this.

> I'd be against mapping non-quantifiable risks like this because it fails the
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Verifiability test - as has already been
> discussed, one person might feel safe; another may not.  A "feeling of
> safety" likely has little bearing on actual risk (for example, during the
> breakup of Yugoslavia someone was worried about me visiting Prague) and
> there are many problems associated with assuming that one reflects the other
> (see e.g. 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2014/08/12/the-many-problems-with-sketchfactor-the-new-crime-crowdsourcing-app-that-some-are-calling-racist/
> ).

of course. The jews will encounter different problems than Germans or LGBT
folks. Which imho does not mean that all of these have legitimate concerns.

Richard

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Danger zone for pedestrians

[Andy Townsend]

On 05/03/2018 11:49, Richard wrote:

this one problem could be (somewhat) solved by conditional restrictions,


No, this is not an access restriction - people are allowed to go there 
whenever they like; it might just not be advisable.


I'd be against mapping non-quantifiable risks like this because it fails 
the https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Verifiability test - as has 
already been discussed, one person might feel safe; another may not.  A 
"feeling of safety" likely has little bearing on actual risk (for 
example, during the breakup of Yugoslavia someone was worried about me 
visiting Prague) and there are many problems associated with assuming 
that one reflects the other (see e.g. 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2014/08/12/the-many-problems-with-sketchfactor-the-new-crime-crowdsourcing-app-that-some-are-calling-racist/ 
).


As to actual tagging of anything _quantifiable_, then perhaps the 
"tagging" list is the better place for that.


Best Regards,

Andy




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

Re: [OSM-talk] Danger zone for pedestrians

[Richard]

On Mon, Mar 05, 2018 at 12:19:19PM +, Ben Oliver wrote:

> Surely then that is enough and we shouldn't need to flag 'dangerous' areas?

many other things can also be decuded like this and we still prefer to
tag them explicitly.
If someone wants to tag it I am against disallowing it for political 
or ideological reasons.

Richard

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Danger zone for pedestrians

[Ben Oliver]

On 18-03-05 13:00:10, Richard wrote:

On Mon, Mar 05, 2018 at 11:10:40AM +0100, Tom Pfeifer wrote:


Besides the verifiability problem, such tagging would discriminate one
demographic group against another, and increase the cultural bias in OSM.


where does such political correctness end? Consider that mapping
brothels, landfills, busy roads and many other features will allow
someone to draw conclusions about the socioeconomic status of the
Area. Most of the time you can deduce income status purely by
the geometry of houses and roads.

Richard


Surely then that is enough and we shouldn't need to flag 'dangerous' 
areas?


I think if you were to do something like this you would have to underpin 
it with crime stats or something.


As a semi-off-topic aside - this was actually the subject of an episode 
of 'The Good Wife'...!


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Danger zone for pedestrians

[Richard]

On Mon, Mar 05, 2018 at 11:10:40AM +0100, Tom Pfeifer wrote:
 
> Besides the verifiability problem, such tagging would discriminate one
> demographic group against another, and increase the cultural bias in OSM.

where does such political correctness end? Consider that mapping 
brothels, landfills, busy roads and many other features will allow 
someone to draw conclusions about the socioeconomic status of the 
Area. Most of the time you can deduce income status purely by
the geometry of houses and roads.

Richard

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Danger zone for pedestrians

[Richard]

On Sun, Mar 04, 2018 at 11:23:27PM -0600, Rodrigo Rodríguez wrote:

> I know I could map if the streets are well iluminated or how is their
> surface, but that's not enough to what happens on those streets (gangs
> and violence, for example). I could also use the class=bicycle tag and
> "hack" a routing service to properly identify these tags, but that's
> doesn't give me the real reflect of reality: I can move around those
> street by day, not on the night.

this one problem could be (somewhat) solved by conditional restrictions,
eg sunset-sunrise
  https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Conditional_restrictions

Not that any routing engine I am aware of would understand those.

Richard

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Danger zone for pedestrians

[Tom Pfeifer]

On 27.02.2018 12:58, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
Mapping perceived danger has been discussed some years ago, and AFAIR wasn't considered to be 
verifiable. Tried to find the discussion but couldn't, you might try yourself with your favorite 
search engine.


It was on the tagging list, see the start here:
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2016-November/030581.html

Besides the verifiability problem, such tagging would discriminate one demographic group against 
another, and increase the cultural bias in OSM.


I remember when I asked a car rental agent for zones to avoid, he kindly marked areas on the map for 
me, but it was not printed on them.


tom

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Danger zone for pedestrians

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2018-03-05 7:57 GMT+01:00 Maarten Deen :

> On 2018-03-05 06:23, Rodrigo Rodríguez wrote:
>
>> These are sort of the things I would appreciate I could be able to
>> map in OSM. Even with the subjective point of view that might
>> represent to tag a way as insecure or not, it is easily achievable to
>> determine a way or schema in wich you could identify wether a street
>> is safe to walk or pass through under determinated conditions.
>>
>
> I disagree. Nothing is more subjective than a sense of danger. There are a
> few roads in my home town that I hear from one or two people are "very
> dangerous" and "should be avoided by bicycle" where I have no problem with
> those roads at all and use them daily.
> How can I determine that from a very subjective "dangerous" tag. I would
> have to see that road for myself to determine if I find it dangerous or
> not, making that tag useless.
>
> If you want such a classification, you would need to tap into crime and
> accident statistics for that road.




I agree that there can be roads and areas one wants to avoid, for many
reasons, including having fear of perceived or actual danger. As this is
subjective and hard or even intrinsicly impossible to verify, I don't think
we should have these in OSM though. I would suggest using a routing engine
that allows for avoidance of given areas, e.g. ORS. These areas could also
be stored in some crowdsourced system, but I don't know if this is already
available.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Danger zone for pedestrians

[Maarten Deen]

On 2018-03-05 06:23, Rodrigo Rodríguez wrote:

These are sort of the things I would appreciate I could be able to
map in OSM. Even with the subjective point of view that might
represent to tag a way as insecure or not, it is easily achievable to
determine a way or schema in wich you could identify wether a street
is safe to walk or pass through under determinated conditions.


I disagree. Nothing is more subjective than a sense of danger. There are 
a few roads in my home town that I hear from one or two people are "very 
dangerous" and "should be avoided by bicycle" where I have no problem 
with those roads at all and use them daily.
How can I determine that from a very subjective "dangerous" tag. I would 
have to see that road for myself to determine if I find it dangerous or 
not, making that tag useless.


If you want such a classification, you would need to tap into crime and 
accident statistics for that road.


Regards,
Maarten

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Danger zone for pedestrians

[Rodrigo Rodríguez]

These are sort of the things I would appreciate I could be able to map
in OSM. Even with the subjective point of view that might represent to
tag a way as insecure or not, it is easily achievable to determine a way
or schema in wich you could identify wether a street is safe to walk or
pass through under determinated conditions.

For example, I've been wondering if I could use class=bicycle to
properly identify bicycle friendly streets in my city, considering we
have no cycleways. In that process, I have found that some routing
engines send me by streets I can't pass through by night nor alone,
because they are very dangerous.

I know I could map if the streets are well iluminated or how is their
surface, but that's not enough to what happens on those streets (gangs
and violence, for example). I could also use the class=bicycle tag and
"hack" a routing service to properly identify these tags, but that's
doesn't give me the real reflect of reality: I can move around those
street by day, not on the night.

I guess this scenario is similar to the one you mention, so I would
propose two things: use a similar scheme tagging as class=bicycle for
pedestrian (that it may be developed), and to propose a time-based
tagging (hourly or night/day).

On the other hand, some weeks ago I read about these kind of projects
and tags within the map feaures, and how they could be misguided the OSM
project to other things that are not included in the initial mission of
the global project (to create a geo-database for scienteific and
academic purpose).

But I guess we can discuss how much would OSM as a service or OSM as a
databse for social science research might be excellent to the whole
global initiative and for incursioning in other research fields
involving OSM.

On 27/02/18 02:50, Jack Armstrong dan...@sprynet.com wrote:
> I came across an interesting node while correcting map errors.
> Thoughts on something like this? Delete it? Modify it? Does OSM care
> to map this type of local information?
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?node=4602572938#map=20/21.01482/-101.25210
>
> The note; "Peligroso en la noche o para mujeres solas. No llevar a la
> vista cosas de valor", translates as, "Dangerous at night or for
> single women. Do not carry things of value in plain sight."
>
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Danger zone for pedestrians

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Mapping perceived danger has been discussed some years ago, and AFAIR
wasn't considered to be verifiable. Tried to find the discussion but
couldn't, you might try yourself with your favorite search engine.

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