Tagging the presence or absence of signs for surveillance cameras

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

Tagging the presence or absence of signs for surveillance cameras

Victor Grousset/tuxayo
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
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Tagging the presence or absence of signs for surveillance cameras

Marc M.
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
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Tagging the presence or absence of signs for surveillance cameras

John Sturdy
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 :
> 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

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

Re: Tagging the presence or absence of signs for surveillance cameras

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?

On Wed, 19 Feb 2020, 10:54 John Sturdy, <[hidden email]> wrote:
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 :
> 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
_______________________________________________
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: Tagging the presence or absence of signs for surveillance cameras

John Sturdy
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:
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:
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 :
> 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
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
_______________________________________________
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: Tagging the presence or absence of signs for surveillance cameras

Peter Elderson
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]>:
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:
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:
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 :
> 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
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
_______________________________________________
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: Tagging the presence or absence of signs for surveillance cameras

dieterdreist
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
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Tagging the presence or absence of signs for surveillance cameras

Michael Reichert-3
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

signature.asc (836 bytes) Download Attachment