I agree on the tagging points, my comment on mapmakers was a response to the claim that maps show the world as it is. By definition, maps are only symbols. Those symbols can get extremely complex but they remain an approximation of the real world. OSM should always strive to reflect what is observable on the ground, whether those facts are embarrassing for some or otherwise, but I personally find the symbolic and subjective nature of maps fascinating =)
The viewpoint question is tricky. There are a lot of official viewpoints with signage on popular drives and hikes. It would limit the subjectivity of the tag if signage was the only consideration. I can understand wanting to add others that aren't official, although those are sometimes only accessible by wandering off of a trail (which is something I don't think OSM should support, it's a big enough problem already). I think there are other resources out there for people who are interested in getting the best views they can, official trails be damned, so I lean towards only including viewpoints that are accessible by established trails/roads. Otherwise, people like me who use OSM for hiking trails, might end up contributing to the degradation of the places we visit. -- Brian On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 9:28 AM Mike Thompson <miketh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Sun, Aug 30, 2020 at 6:53 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... >> > > In OSM we should map facts, what is observable on the ground (with the > exception of personal information, and perhaps culturally sensitive sites > whose location has not otherwise been published ). Like Stevea alluded to, > what the data user does with the information is up to them. Otherwise, we > descend into only relying on opinion as to what facts are "dangerous" or > what facts could "encourage dangerous or bad behavior." Also, some facts > are embarrassing to individuals or organizations because those facts might > show they are not doing their job. Of course, they will not come out and > say, please don't publish these facts because it is an embarrassment to us, > they will find some way to say "the facts are dangerous" or "while the > facts portray a bad situation, publishing those facts will only make the > situation worse." > > In this case, our obligation is to clearly indicate that access=no or > access=private (in other words, not open to the general public). > > We can debate whether this should be tagged tourism=viewpoint, but the > debate should be around whether the object fits our definition, not whether > it may or may not encourage "bad" behavior. For all we know, > historic=ruins might actually encourage more bad behavior than > tourism=viewpoint. I am not saying it will, I am saying we don't have any > evidence one way or the other. > > Mike > >
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
