On Aug 30, 2020, at 5:50 PM, Brian Stromberg <brian.stromb...@gmail.com> wrote: > I would argue that maps can only show the world as the mapmaker wants it to > be shown, and OSM should probably not be encouraging people (in any way) to > be visiting sites that are clearly marked as illegal to visit. This seems > like a bad precedent to set. I would include the bunker but not mark it as > tourism. People will find it if they want to, whatever OSM tags it as, so it > doesn't seem necessary to participate/encourage in whatever degree of > illegality the access entails.
And here is where some disagree: OSM does not "encourage." OSM is data. It simply says "this is" and "these are." OSM does not encourage people (in any way) to visit a site or trespass. It is a collection of data (of "what is") expressed as a map. Full stop. Sometimes, "sites" or "roads" are marked as "private" or "permissive" or "no access." What people do from there did not happen because I, you, she, he, they or ANYBODY entered data into a map. Period. If a sign says "No Trespassing" yet it is ignored, who is responsible? A map? No, the trespasser. (And yes, to the greatest extent possible, OSM wants to not only tag such data where known, but express these access restrictions in renderings, as well. OSM has been doing this for years, quite well in my opinion). I don't believe OSM "sets precedents" as Brian describes, as OSM doesn't "encourage." Two facts: 1), tourists DO visit this site and 2), OSM uses the tourism key to denote viewpoints (and the view IS spectacular). I have no problem with "tourism=viewpoint" here, though apparently Brian disagrees. OK. I'm glad the thread includes the word "Opinions!" (Thank you, Frederik). I don't mean to sound argumentative or antagonistic, but if someone more clearly draws a line between "entered map data" and "encouraged people (in any way) to do anything illegal," I'd like to follow that line. However, nobody has been able to do that (yet). I believe "the correct" access tagging (on the path, for example) will go a long distance here. Both access=no and access=private mean the same thing to me as a "No Trespassing" sign when I see them rendered in Carto, for example. Some final notes in the realm of "legal" (I am not an attorney): there is something in California called Civil Code 1008 which expresses a method to legally prevent easements from being created on private property. One can create an easement by simply "using" (traversing, for example) said private property in a notorious manner for some number of years. To prevent this, the owner must post a sign reading "Right to pass by permission and subject to control of owner: Civil Code Section 1008." However, that's not what the sign says (which Frederik posted and I have seen personally). Speculating, I'd guess this sign was placed there by local search and rescue personnel (might be fire / paramedics) who don't wish to be burdened with rescues (or worse) at the same place for the same reason — and the local ordinance cited (San Mateo County Ordinance No. 1462) makes that actual law. With all this, I believe access=no is a correct tag (on the path, would be my first inclination). SteveA _______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
