Feature Proposal - RFC - Objects generating audible cues

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
8 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Feature Proposal - RFC - Objects generating audible cues

bkil
I welcome your comments on the following proposal:

Those with vision impairment should also have the right to explore and
map their surroundings in ways appropriate for them. We should have a
unified way to specify the kind of noise that is generated by an
object. The most useful ones are those which are right beside a
footway and which is clearly audible when walking by.

The existing documentation for man_made=street_cabinet should be
updated to deprecate sound=* and the few existing OSM occurrences for
this tag combination along with power=* should be changed to use
audible=*.

The following mistaggings of traffic_signals:sound=* should also be
eliminated manually: sound=* (in the right combination),
crossing:signals:sound=*, crossing:sound=*.


See the proposal page for details:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Objects_generating_audible_cues

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - Objects generating audible cues

bkil
It has been raised on a private discussion if we could mention whether
a private house or an industrial site has a guard dog that is easily
identifiable by its barking. It is my viewpoint that from a mapping
ethics standpoint, we should not map this because it may compromise a
home's security. What do you think?

On Sat, Sep 26, 2020 at 12:01 PM bkil <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> I welcome your comments on the following proposal:
>
> Those with vision impairment should also have the right to explore and
> map their surroundings in ways appropriate for them. We should have a
> unified way to specify the kind of noise that is generated by an
> object. The most useful ones are those which are right beside a
> footway and which is clearly audible when walking by.
>
> The existing documentation for man_made=street_cabinet should be
> updated to deprecate sound=* and the few existing OSM occurrences for
> this tag combination along with power=* should be changed to use
> audible=*.
>
> The following mistaggings of traffic_signals:sound=* should also be
> eliminated manually: sound=* (in the right combination),
> crossing:signals:sound=*, crossing:sound=*.
>
>
> See the proposal page for details:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Objects_generating_audible_cues

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - Objects generating audible cues

Shawn K. Quinn
On 10/14/20 09:19, bkil wrote:
> It has been raised on a private discussion if we could mention whether
> a private house or an industrial site has a guard dog that is easily
> identifiable by its barking. It is my viewpoint that from a mapping
> ethics standpoint, we should not map this because it may compromise a
> home's security. What do you think?

I don't think this is something that should be mapped, if for no other
reason it's too likely to change quickly, and there's no guarantee a dog
will bark at everyone walking/driving by.

--
Shawn K. Quinn <[hidden email]>
http://www.rantroulette.com
http://www.skqrecordquest.com

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - Objects generating audible cues

dieterdreist
In reply to this post by bkil


sent from a phone

> On 14. Oct 2020, at 16:22, bkil <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> It has been raised on a private discussion if we could mention whether
> a private house or an industrial site has a guard dog that is easily
> identifiable by its barking.



if you only hear it this could still be a fake barking from loudspeakers ;)

If you are going to tag it, it should be distinguishable between “have seen a dog” and “have heard a dog”

Cheers Martin
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - Objects generating audible cues

bkil
A person navigating with a cane can use multiple cues on any given
section, and "hearing a dog" could be one of them. If two houses are
marked at 33% and 66% of a block as having dogs and only one of them
barks at you at a given occasion, you should still be able to
integrate this cue among others because you are counting your steps
and experiencing elapsed time at the same time (along with observing
flower beds, surface texture, rainfall drains, driveways, fence type,
trees, street cabinets and whatnot). The more cues you can lean on the
better.

Also if they navigate using their seeing eye dog, it may also help
them keep good distance from such fences and to not get startled when
the inside and outside dogs start to vocalize with each other. Of
course I've seen many lazy dogs all over the place, but I've seen many
more who aren't provided with enough entertainment so they go an extra
mile to bark at you (while wagging their tails).

Looking at it from a security perspective: it is very common to place
a sign on your fence to the effect of `beware of vicious dog` even
though I have never seen or heard any dog there. It is so common that
I would say no dog was ever found there in 50% of the cases.

According to my mapping experience, dogs live a really long time (and
they even multiply), and having a dog at a house is much much more
stable than some commonly tagged properties. A "dog person" will
usually replace a dog after it dies, hence even if a given dog stays
for 5 years, the "dogness" of a property usually stays until the owner
stays the same. In 99% of the cases, dogs are present for multiple
years, while transport stops, road surfaces, or even geometry of
tracks can change every year.

For those who have no visual impairment at the moment (but this could
change for the worse in the blink of an eye!), it is more desirable to
hike, walk your puppy or push your baby stroller on calmer streets
that have the least amount of barking.

On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 4:42 PM Martin Koppenhoefer
<[hidden email]> wrote:

>
>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> > On 14. Oct 2020, at 16:22, bkil <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > It has been raised on a private discussion if we could mention whether
> > a private house or an industrial site has a guard dog that is easily
> > identifiable by its barking.
>
>
>
> if you only hear it this could still be a fake barking from loudspeakers ;)
>
> If you are going to tag it, it should be distinguishable between “have seen a dog” and “have heard a dog”
>
> Cheers Martin
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - Objects generating audible cues

Graeme Fitzpatrick



On Thu, 15 Oct 2020 at 01:10, bkil <bkil.hu+[hidden email]> wrote:
"hearing a dog" could be one of them.

But aren't you then going to need to differentiate the sounds?

# 18 has a Chihuahua (yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap) while # 23 has a Rottweiler (WOOF)

Thanks

Graeme


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - Objects generating audible cues

bkil
Surely you could always refine tagging according to your needs (like
with dog:species=Rottweiler). Although, I think the exact species of
canines could change much more often due to replacement and/or moving.
You probably also need to be an expert on the topic to tell apart
hundreds of purebred types and their voices, and then handle all the
impure ones as well.

You could also consider mapping their count, because that is pretty
easy to tell (1-3).

Anyway, I probably wouldn't overload the audible*=* scheme with
this. It seems like many are interested in this. Marking it may
involve hazard=dog, surveillance:type=guarddog, guard:type=dog or
guard_dog=yes.
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/hazard=dog#overview
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/surveillance%3Atype=guarddog
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/guard%3Atype=dog
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/guard_dog#values

Funny:
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/guard_dog%3Anoisy#values
What about guard_dog=invisible?

So my question is still of a mapping ethics nature: would we be doing
any harm if we mapped whether a given private home has visible or
audible guard animals? (Sirens and other security measures aren't that
interesting from an ear-mapping perspective)



On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 12:32 AM Graeme Fitzpatrick
<[hidden email]> wrote:

>
>
>
>
> On Thu, 15 Oct 2020 at 01:10, bkil <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> "hearing a dog" could be one of them.
>
>
> But aren't you then going to need to differentiate the sounds?
>
> # 18 has a Chihuahua (yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap) while # 23 has a Rottweiler (WOOF)
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - Objects generating audible cues

Graeme Fitzpatrick



On Thu, 15 Oct 2020 at 21:35, bkil <bkil.hu+[hidden email]> wrote:
Surely you could always refine tagging according to your needs (like
with dog:species=Rottweiler).

No, I wasn't talking about the species, but about the "level" of sound heard. A blind person can't tell if that's a Rottweiler, German Shepherd, Pit Bull or anything else, just that it has a deep WOOF, while the other dog has a sharp, shrill yap, yap, yap.

So you'd need to somehow account for level / depth of sound.

So my question is still of a mapping ethics nature: would we be doing
any harm if we mapped whether a given private home has visible or
audible guard animals? (Sirens and other security measures aren't that
interesting from an ear-mapping perspective)

No, personally, I don't think we should map that a private home has any type of security, be it electronic or animal. Mapping to say there's a dog here would be OK though.

Thanks

Graeme


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging