Hi, :)
This is kind of a proposal/first discussion to introduce the following tag and values for surveillance cameras : "camera:signed=yes" => when the camera has a sign that warns about it's presence. "camera:signed=no" => when the camera does not hold any information sign about itself. == Some context == In countries like France (and it seems that now the whole EU due to GDRP), cameras filming the public space must notify the public of their existence via a regulatory sign. Thus, the presence or absence of the sign would be an important information to map. Clearly, the idea is to map whether the sign is present or absent. And not to map the fact that the camera complies or not with the laws of the country. Like private places receiving public visitors, workplaces, etc. The current context of this need is a campaign[1] in France against the current trend for the use of automated CCTV in the public space (suspicious behavior detection, facial recognition, etc). The relevant part of this campaign is to take legal action in some cities against these cameras whose presence is not being notified to people and that are not even always signed (thus illegal with regards to the GDRP). These legal actions would ask for more information, transparency and access to camera locations and other information as open data. == Why are we proposing the tag camera:signed=* ? == Coincidentally there was a recent discussion[2] about these signs in the french mailing list (talk-fr) which lead to adding the following section in the page https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made=surveillance > In countries where the public must be notified of surveillance cameras, the following tags could be used on the node: > > tourism=information > information=board > board_type=surveillance The followup of the of discussion show's that «tourism=information» shouldn't be used, only the two other lines. This does not look as a good complete solution (in addition of being a bit too verbose). Indeed it does not allow to map for a missing sign. Something working like https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:noname is needed in our case. To solve the issue of the missing sign, an extensive search of taginfo and parts of the wiki showed that the closest used tag was : https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:unsigned It's even documented: > This key is used to annotate the fact that there is no on-the-ground sign indicating this feature's name. So unsigned=* would need to be extended to include the usage with cameras. But the problem with this solution is that when the sign is present we would have unsigned=no which is quite confusing and error-prone (double negation). So what about the tag : signed=yes signed=no ? This sounds clear. But it's confusing as unsigned=* already exists and one could get mixed up between the two (unsigned and signed). And also, signed is a very general word so standardizing it's usage is more difficult because other usages (than cameras) have to be thought about. So to keep things simple, stupid (KISS)[3], let's use a prefix: camera:signed=yes camera:signed=no Moreover, this solution is consistent with the existing tag camera:type=* So we hope to have covered the right points to have a good basis for comments and discussions. The talk-fr list will be notified that the topic is continuing here. [1] https://technopolice.fr/ [2] http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Tag-panneau-zone-video-surveillance-td5958203.html [3] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Any_tags_you_like#Style_Guide.3F Cheers, -- Victor/tuxayo and eda_n _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging |
Le 19.02.20 à 04:29, Victor/tuxayo a écrit :
> Coincidentally there was a recent discussion[2] about these signs in the > french mailing list (talk-fr) which lead to adding the following section > in the page > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made=surveillance I warn that this addition does not reflect the discussion that took place on talk-fr, but is "self-declared as consensus" more than half of the opinions are that a regulatory sign of this kind is not tourist information (imho I think it is closer to a sign that announces a pedestrian crossing or a maxspeed zone) _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging |
Whatever the concensus in another discussion was, I think that double negatives will risk confusion, and that *:signed=yes and *:signed=no seems to be a reasonable proposal. I have noticed that some but not all of the surveillance cameras (city council, I believe) in Cambridge (UK) have signs. __John On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 10:13 AM marc marc <[hidden email]> wrote: Le 19.02.20 à 04:29, Victor/tuxayo a écrit : _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging |
In general, are these signs physically on the camera, or are they in the vicinity? If so, should they be tagged objects in their own account? On Wed, 19 Feb 2020, 10:54 John Sturdy, <[hidden email]> wrote:
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging |
On the ones I've noticed in Cambridge, they are either on the lower part of the pole supporting the camera, or, for building-mounted cameras, on the wall below the camera. (The cameras are well above head height, and notices on them would not be readable unless very large.) On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 11:48 AM Jez Nicholson <[hidden email]> wrote:
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging |
I think a warning sign is legally required in Nederland. I don't think it's very useful to register the absence or presence of mandatory warning signs in OSM. If it is not there, report it to whoever is supposed to maintain or enforce it. If you want to register incidents to make a stand, an ushahidi-type of register is better I think. For the cams themselves I see a use case, but the presence or absence of a sign does not seem relevant to me. The overall camera situation is very dynamic, so I do see a problem with coverage, quality, maintenance and actuality. Best, Peter Elderson Op wo 19 feb. 2020 om 12:54 schreef John Sturdy <[hidden email]>:
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging |
In reply to this post by Victor Grousset/tuxayo
sent from a phone > Il giorno 19 feb 2020, alle ore 04:31, Victor/tuxayo <[hidden email]> ha scritto: > > > In countries where the public must be notified of surveillance cameras, the following tags could be used on the node: > > > > tourism=information > > information=board > > board_type=surveillance -1, these signs clearly aren’t within the scope of information boards for tourists. I am not opposing to map them, but not like this. Cheers Martin _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging |
In reply to this post by Jez Nicholson
Hi,
Am 19.02.20 um 12:45 schrieb Jez Nicholson: > In general, are these signs physically on the camera, or are they in the > vicinity? If so, should they be tagged objects in their own account? In supermarkets and other shops, I do not map surveillance cameras individually. Instead, I just put surveillance=indoor to the node or way representing the shop. I do not know if that is a my special tagging habit nobody else follows but it would be helpful to be able to express "this place has surveillance cameras and a/no sign". Best regards Michael _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging |
Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |