Yes, I am replying to an old message (I finally processed it). It is about editing https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Limitations_on_mapping_private_information to bring it closer to community consensus.
Sep 16, 2020, 15:43 by bkil.hu...@gmail.com: > Could someone perhaps clarify why this page resides in the main > namespace and not in the responsible proposer's user space? > >> Do not name individuals in OpenStreetMap tags, unless their name is on a >> business sign posted towards the street, or part of the business name and >> available in public records. >> > > What if the name of the operator is printed on each receipt when you > shop there or a certificate is placed on the wall that shows it? We > usually add that to operator=*. > I changed this sentence to "Do not name individuals in OpenStreetMap tags, unless their name is on a business sign posted towards the street, or part of the business name or otherwise publicly available. For example tagging operator=* based on data printed on receipts is normal." > Indeed I think that the article confuses mapped things that are > worthless and mapped things that are dangerous (according to GDPR). > I would not say confuses, it is just that for private data "it is not ethical to map", "it is pointless to map this" and "it is illegal to map this" often applies together. > For example, the reason why we don't map private washing machines is > that its location and capacity is not information that is in public > interest (hence why it is not a POI). Another reason that it fails the > verifiability criterion: if I want to check that the position and type > information of the washing machine is still accurate, I need to ring > the doorbell and be invited in to see for myself, but it is not > realistic that an owner would invite dozens of potentially malicious > random people into their house just for this. > > Even if the object would be visible from the outside, it is of no use > to 99.9999% of individuals if the owner does not let me do my laundry > there. If a TV is fully and clearly visible from the outside through > the window, it _may_ serve a public utility of entertainment if you > can lip read, but you need to ring the doorbell each time you want to > switch channels... > > Private parking and driveways are acceptable because it hints at which > way the entrance is - helping delivery personal and guests alike. I've > mapped some very interesting hilly terrain where this can be > especially useful, as roads were pretty dense and the road towards > where the entrance is was not trivial and a failed guess could cost > you a few more minutes of walking or driving for each house. > I think that there is an universal agreement that private driveways and parkings are mappable. > Private swimming pools aren't that interesting but people seem to > enjoy tracing them. Maybe in case of emergency they could be used as a > nearby water source by the fire brigade? > Yes, swimming pools can be and are used by firefighters. For example in USA during wildfires helicopters lifting water from private swimming pools is something that happens. > From the privacy section, am I reading correctly that you suggest that > you find it acceptable to map each tomb in a cemetery by name? > Yes, I would expect it to be acceptable and I mapped some graves together with inscription on them (typically ones of my family so that it would be possible for me to locate this graves on my own). For example https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/7777591130 Though if there is consensus that it is not OK then I would stop doing this. > I think a lot of considerations are missing in this article other than > those stemming from the GDPR, like military and national > considerations. You also do not mention that there exist regions where > mapping activities are forbidden by the law and punishable by prison > sentence. > Note article title "Limitations on mapping private information". I am aware that some of my OSM activity that I did was breaking laws in China, Russia, India and probably also North Korea and Pakistan. (not sure whatever this countries consider it as breaking their law if I did it in an other country) Describing how OSM is not respecting this laws and how OSM mappers may be impacted may be useful (maybe was done already) but it is not related to private information. > And anyway other than describing "what is worthless to map", > I think you are trying to basically gather "mapping ethics" > Partially yes. > and maybe > this should be better be done in Wikipedia because it does not only > concern OpenStreetMap, but any mapping provider. > This would be out of scope of WIkipedia and I am interested in consensus of OSM mappers, not more wide consensus/opinion. > On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 3:15 PM Niels Elgaard Larsen <elga...@agol.dk> wrote: > >> >> Mateusz Konieczny via talk: >> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Limitations_on_mapping_private_information >> > >> > Do you think that this page is a good description of community consensus? >> > >> > The page has >> > "This page is under development (May 2020). It may not yet reflect >> > community consensus." >> > and I would like to check whatever it matches community consensus well or >> > mismatches it. >> >> >> >> I think we should avoid language such as "There is no need to split >> residential >> landuse into individual plots". >> >> Of course there is a need for someone somewhere to tag just about everything. >> For example, if you want to buy a house you would want to see where the plot >> is. >> >> This is not about needs, but about privacy, and maybe data quality. >> >> >> -- >> Niels Elgaard Larsen >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Tagging mailing list >> tagg...@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >> > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > tagg...@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
