"Limitations on mapping private information" - wiki page

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

"Limitations on mapping private information" - wiki page

General Discussion mailing list

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.

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

Re: "Limitations on mapping private information" - wiki page

dieterdreist


sent from a phone

On 16. Sep 2020, at 09:41, Mateusz Konieczny via talk <[hidden email]> wrote:

Do you think that this page is a good description of community consensus?


There are some points I would like to comment on:

  • OpenStreetMap is not a property registry, thus do not map individual ownership of buildings or plots. There is no need to split residential landuse into individual plots. (Compare Parcel.)


Yes, we do not map individual ownership of land and buildings generally, but unless the owner is a person, we could and privacy regulations would not prevent us from doing it. It also isn’t an argument for refraining from mapping property divisions, because these are interesting regardless of _who_ is the owner


“some structure of a semi-public garden appear to be the borderline of being acceptable.“

IMHO exaggerated, semi-public objects can be mapped in all detail and aren’t borderline cases

Well, at least according to my understanding of the term semi-public


Cheers Martin 




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

Re: "Limitations on mapping private information" - wiki page

Frederik Ramm
In reply to this post by General Discussion mailing list
Hi,

On 16.09.20 09:17, Mateusz Konieczny via talk wrote:
> Do you think that this page is a good description of community consensus?

I think it is about right. I have added a section on "other reasons not
to map" which is out of scope of the page, but I wouldn't want people to
say "X is not listed on that page so I can map it!"

Bye
Frederik

--
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail [hidden email]  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

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

Re: "Limitations on mapping private information" - wiki page

Frederik Ramm
Hi,

I added a section explaining that the concept of privacy applies only to
living human beings.

Bye
Frederik

--
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail [hidden email]  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

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

Re: "Limitations on mapping private information" - wiki page

General Discussion mailing list
In reply to this post by General Discussion mailing list
On Wednesday 16 September 2020, Mateusz Konieczny via talk wrote:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Limitations_on_mapping_private_in
>formation

I think while that page does not contain gross factual errors as far as
i see it could be fairly misleading for people unfamiliar with OSM
otherwise:

* it start with "The freedom to map the world..." which implies the aim
of OSM is "to map the world" - which it is not.  OSM aims to collect
verifiable local knowledge of the geography of the world.  That is
something different.

* The list of things to "do not" kind of implies this is a distinct set
of rules separate from and above the general goals and values of the
project (i.e. verifiable local knowledge of the geography).  I don't
think that is the case.

My own take on privacy related limitations to mapping would be much more
simple:  Individual humans as well as their activities and social
interactions between individual humans - including permanent physical
manifestations of those - are not as such part of the verifiable
geography we intend to record.

The private swimming pool and the private driveway become part of the
verifiable geography because members of society on a larger scale (i.e.
not just the personal social environment of the owner) interact with
them on a routine basis.  In those cases mostly visually - but that can
be sufficient.

I think with this clarification everything on your list of things not to
map due to privacy concerns is covered by being not mappable due to not
being part of the verifiable geography.

--
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

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

Re: "Limitations on mapping private information" - wiki page

Andrew Harvey-3
In reply to this post by dieterdreist

On Wed, 16 Sep 2020 at 18:04, Martin Koppenhoefer <[hidden email]> wrote:
Yes, we do not map individual ownership of land and buildings generally, but unless the owner is a person, we could and privacy regulations would not prevent us from doing it. It also isn’t an argument for refraining from mapping property divisions, because these are interesting regardless of _who_ is the owner

Tangentially, at least where the cadastre matches what's on the ground, I hope one day we can include the cadastre in OSM, with the address and landuse information tagged on the parcel. Instead of trying to trace out the outline of the parcels in a block in an editor I could just select all the parcels and say they are residential parcels and that's the landuse done.

Indeed I agree with Martin, that there is a lot of value in knowing about parcels completely without any kind of ownership information attached. One can do analysis on lot size, building floor space ratio to lot size, etc. if we mapped the parcel.

> Limit the detail of mapping private backyards. As a guideline, permanently installed private swimming pools, or some structure of a semi-public garden appear to be the borderline of being acceptable. Add access=private as appropriate.

Agreed backyard pools are widespread mapped and seem to be tolerated and okay, backyard tennis courts I would put into the same category.

I think rooftop solar on residential houses is also mapped in places, and I think is okay.

Given all of this is not personally identifiable and already public in aerial imagery etc. I agree including this in OSM shouldn't pose an issue.

Under other reasons not to map, I think we could include Aboriginal sacred sites where "The traditional owners and their representatives have asked that the locations of other sites be kept private to protect them and maintain their sanctity.".

But otherwise I feel the page is a good description of community consensus.

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

Re: "Limitations on mapping private information" - wiki page

General Discussion mailing list
In reply to this post by dieterdreist

I would understand 'semi-public garden' to be, for example, a garden where you pay an admission fee to enter, or one which is closed at night. Like Martin, I would expect these to be completely acceptable to map.

I think the intention is to deter people from mapping _fully private_ gardens which can be viewed from public roads, is this correct?

Nick



From: Martin Koppenhoefer <[hidden email]>
Sent: 16 September 2020 08:51
To: Mateusz Konieczny <[hidden email]>
Cc: OSM Talk <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] "Limitations on mapping private information" - wiki page
 


sent from a phone

On 16. Sep 2020, at 09:41, Mateusz Konieczny via talk <[hidden email]> wrote:

Do you think that this page is a good description of community consensus?


There are some points I would like to comment on:

  • OpenStreetMap is not a property registry, thus do not map individual ownership of buildings or plots. There is no need to split residential landuse into individual plots. (Compare Parcel.)


Yes, we do not map individual ownership of land and buildings generally, but unless the owner is a person, we could and privacy regulations would not prevent us from doing it. It also isn’t an argument for refraining from mapping property divisions, because these are interesting regardless of _who_ is the owner


“some structure of a semi-public garden appear to be the borderline of being acceptable.“

IMHO exaggerated, semi-public objects can be mapped in all detail and aren’t borderline cases

Well, at least according to my understanding of the term semi-public


Cheers Martin 




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

Re: "Limitations on mapping private information" - wiki page

dieterdreist
In reply to this post by General Discussion mailing list
Am Mi., 16. Sept. 2020 um 10:48 Uhr schrieb Christoph Hormann via talk <[hidden email]>:
* it start with "The freedom to map the world..." which implies the aim
of OSM is "to map the world" - which it is not.  OSM aims to collect
verifiable local knowledge of the geography of the world.  That is
something different.


checking with reality, it is clear that many mappers also share the "mapping the world" goal and are not just mapping things with which they are acquainted.
 

My own take on privacy related limitations to mapping would be much more
simple:  Individual humans as well as their activities and social
interactions between individual humans - including permanent physical
manifestations of those - are not as such part of the verifiable
geography we intend to record.


+0.9, I'd make it more precise: "private activities and private social interactions"

 

The private swimming pool and the private driveway become part of the
verifiable geography because members of society on a larger scale (i.e.
not just the personal social environment of the owner) interact with
them on a routine basis.


I'd question this. Noone has to show their private swimming pool or driveway to anybody, clearly not on a "larger scale". (I am still for mapping private swimming pools, and driveways, as long as we do not associate an individual with it, it has nothing to do with privacy.)

 
  In those cases mostly visually - but that can
be sufficient.


mostly you can't see private swimming pools from the street, and according to the area, you also might not be able to see the driveway.

Cheers,
Martin

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

Re: "Limitations on mapping private information" - wiki page

Christoph Hormann-2
On Wednesday 16 September 2020, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
> > simple:  Individual humans as well as their activities and social
> > interactions between individual humans - including permanent
> > physical manifestations of those - are not as such part of the
> > verifiable geography we intend to record.
>
> +0.9, I'd make it more precise: "private activities and private
> social interactions"

No, public activities of individual humans are not as such part of the
verifiable geography either.  If my neighbor takes their dog for a walk
on a certain route every day that is a public activity - yet does not
belong in OSM.

> > The private swimming pool and the private driveway become part of
> > the verifiable geography because members of society on a larger
> > scale (i.e. not just the personal social environment of the owner)
> > interact with them on a routine basis.
>
> I'd question this. Noone has to show their private swimming pool or
> driveway to anybody, clearly not on a "larger scale". (I am still for
> mapping private swimming pools, and driveways, as long as we do not
> associate an individual with it, it has nothing to do with privacy.)
>
> >   In those cases mostly visually - but that can
> > be sufficient.
>
> mostly you can't see private swimming pools from the street, and
> according to the area, you also might not be able to see the
> driveway.

We might have different ideas of what a driveway is but a private
driveway as i imagine it is part of the verifiable geography among
other things because you have to take notice of cars coming out of
private driveways as you drive along a public road.  In other words:  
The driveway becomes part of the verifiable geography by being used as
a driveway.

For swimming pools that is certainly a matter of size - large swimming
pools are however major constructions and major users of water supplies
as well as reservoirs of water - to be used for example by firefighters
in an emergency.  That is where i would see the interaction on a larger
scale.

--
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

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

Re: "Limitations on mapping private information" - wiki page

General Discussion mailing list
In reply to this post by Frederik Ramm
Note that
seems to indicate that at least in some countries it is different

Denmark: "§ 2(5): Data Protection Act and the GDPR apply to deceased persons until 10 years after the time of death."



Sep 16, 2020, 10:42 by [hidden email]:
Hi,

I added a section explaining that the concept of privacy applies only to
living human beings.

Bye
Frederik

--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail [hidden email] ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


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

Re: "Limitations on mapping private information" - wiki page

General Discussion mailing list
In reply to this post by General Discussion mailing list



Sep 16, 2020, 10:59 by [hidden email]:

I would understand 'semi-public garden' to be, for example, a garden where you pay an admission fee to enter, or one which is closed at night. Like Martin, I would expect these to be completely acceptable to map.
Not a native speaker, not a lawyer. I would describe such areas as public (possibly privately owned).
I think the intention is to deter people from mapping _fully private_ gardens which can be viewed from public roads, is this correct?
I am not sure about other, but for me it is about discouraging mapping fully private garden in detail.

For example mapping garden area itself and trees (maybe even with their species), but
micromapping area where someone planted strawberries seems something that
is out of scope of OSM for privacy reasons.

Nick





From: Martin Koppenhoefer <[hidden email]>
Sent: 16 September 2020 08:51
To: Mateusz Konieczny <[hidden email]>
Cc: OSM Talk <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] "Limitations on mapping private information" - wiki page
 


sent from a phone

On 16. Sep 2020, at 09:41, Mateusz Konieczny via talk <[hidden email]> wrote:

Do you think that this page is a good description of community consensus?


There are some points I would like to comment on:


  • OpenStreetMap is not a property registry, thus do not map individual ownership of buildings or plots. There is no need to split residential landuse into individual plots. (Compare Parcel.)


Yes, we do not map individual ownership of land and buildings generally, but unless the owner is a person, we could and privacy regulations would not prevent us from doing it. It also isn’t an argument for refraining from mapping property divisions, because these are interesting regardless of _who_ is the owner


“some structure of a semi-public garden appear to be the borderline of being acceptable.“

IMHO exaggerated, semi-public objects can be mapped in all detail and aren’t borderline cases

Well, at least according to my understanding of the term semi-public


Cheers Martin 





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

Re: "Limitations on mapping private information" - wiki page

Nick Whitelegg-2

Yes - that's absolutely fine! Just wanted to clarify it here so that the wording could be altered (I'm quite happy to do this myself).

Thanks,
Nick



From: Mateusz Konieczny via talk <[hidden email]>
Sent: 16 September 2020 11:01
Cc: osm <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] "Limitations on mapping private information" - wiki page
 



Sep 16, 2020, 10:59 by [hidden email]:

I would understand 'semi-public garden' to be, for example, a garden where you pay an admission fee to enter, or one which is closed at night. Like Martin, I would expect these to be completely acceptable to map.
Not a native speaker, not a lawyer. I would describe such areas as public (possibly privately owned).
I think the intention is to deter people from mapping _fully private_ gardens which can be viewed from public roads, is this correct?
I am not sure about other, but for me it is about discouraging mapping fully private garden in detail.

For example mapping garden area itself and trees (maybe even with their species), but
micromapping area where someone planted strawberries seems something that
is out of scope of OSM for privacy reasons.

Nick





From: Martin Koppenhoefer <[hidden email]>
Sent: 16 September 2020 08:51
To: Mateusz Konieczny <[hidden email]>
Cc: OSM Talk <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] "Limitations on mapping private information" - wiki page
 


sent from a phone

On 16. Sep 2020, at 09:41, Mateusz Konieczny via talk <[hidden email]> wrote:

Do you think that this page is a good description of community consensus?


There are some points I would like to comment on:


  • OpenStreetMap is not a property registry, thus do not map individual ownership of buildings or plots. There is no need to split residential landuse into individual plots. (Compare Parcel.)


Yes, we do not map individual ownership of land and buildings generally, but unless the owner is a person, we could and privacy regulations would not prevent us from doing it. It also isn’t an argument for refraining from mapping property divisions, because these are interesting regardless of _who_ is the owner


“some structure of a semi-public garden appear to be the borderline of being acceptable.“

IMHO exaggerated, semi-public objects can be mapped in all detail and aren’t borderline cases

Well, at least according to my understanding of the term semi-public


Cheers Martin 





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

Re: "Limitations on mapping private information" - wiki page

General Discussion mailing list
If you (or anyone else) see way to improve it - feel free to do this.

So far (at least in my opinion) this page benefited from edits of different people,
so far there was also no issues with people having incompatible opinions about
what is the consensus opinion.


Sep 16, 2020, 12:04 by [hidden email]:

Yes - that's absolutely fine! Just wanted to clarify it here so that the wording could be altered (I'm quite happy to do this myself).

Thanks,
Nick





From: Mateusz Konieczny via talk <[hidden email]>
Sent: 16 September 2020 11:01
Cc: osm <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] "Limitations on mapping private information" - wiki page
 



Sep 16, 2020, 10:59 by [hidden email]:

I would understand 'semi-public garden' to be, for example, a garden where you pay an admission fee to enter, or one which is closed at night. Like Martin, I would expect these to be completely acceptable to map.
Not a native speaker, not a lawyer. I would describe such areas as public (possibly privately owned).
I think the intention is to deter people from mapping _fully private_ gardens which can be viewed from public roads, is this correct?
I am not sure about other, but for me it is about discouraging mapping fully private garden in detail.

For example mapping garden area itself and trees (maybe even with their species), but
micromapping area where someone planted strawberries seems something that
is out of scope of OSM for privacy reasons.

Nick





From: Martin Koppenhoefer <[hidden email]>
Sent: 16 September 2020 08:51
To: Mateusz Konieczny <[hidden email]>
Cc: OSM Talk <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] "Limitations on mapping private information" - wiki page
 


sent from a phone

On 16. Sep 2020, at 09:41, Mateusz Konieczny via talk <[hidden email]> wrote:

Do you think that this page is a good description of community consensus?


There are some points I would like to comment on:


  • OpenStreetMap is not a property registry, thus do not map individual ownership of buildings or plots. There is no need to split residential landuse into individual plots. (Compare Parcel.)


Yes, we do not map individual ownership of land and buildings generally, but unless the owner is a person, we could and privacy regulations would not prevent us from doing it. It also isn’t an argument for refraining from mapping property divisions, because these are interesting regardless of _who_ is the owner


“some structure of a semi-public garden appear to be the borderline of being acceptable.“

IMHO exaggerated, semi-public objects can be mapped in all detail and aren’t borderline cases

Well, at least according to my understanding of the term semi-public


Cheers Martin 






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

Re: "Limitations on mapping private information" - wiki page

General Discussion mailing list
In reply to this post by Frederik Ramm
"mapping the location of safe houses for victims of domestic violence"

do you think that it would be OK to change that to

"mapping the location of unsigned safe houses for victims of domestic violence"
?

I would expect that the first type would be not mappable and second would be
mappable, but I had no real contact with either type.

I added
to describe limitations of that page


Sep 16, 2020, 10:24 by [hidden email]:
Hi,

On 16.09.20 09:17, Mateusz Konieczny via talk wrote:
Do you think that this page is a good description of community consensus?

I think it is about right. I have added a section on "other reasons not
to map" which is out of scope of the page, but I wouldn't want people to
say "X is not listed on that page so I can map it!"

Bye
Frederik

--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail [hidden email] ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


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

Re: "Limitations on mapping private information" - wiki page

General Discussion mailing list
In reply to this post by Christoph Hormann-2



Sep 16, 2020, 11:38 by [hidden email]:
On Wednesday 16 September 2020, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

> simple: Individual humans as well as their activities and social
> interactions between individual humans - including permanent
> physical manifestations of those - are not as such part of the
> verifiable geography we intend to record.

+0.9, I'd make it more precise: "private activities and private
social interactions"

No, public activities of individual humans are not as such part of the
verifiable geography either. If my neighbor takes their dog for a walk
on a certain route every day that is a public activity - yet does not
belong in OSM.
But if they manage to create a path as result of taking the same route repeatedly
it becomes a mappable feature.

I feel that "permanent physical manifestations of those" includes far too many
things that are actually mappable.

What about buildings? Many of them are also "physical manifestations of those"
and not visible from public land. I would still consider them as mappable
and verifiable - we can do this using aerial images and so on.
> The private swimming pool and the private driveway become part of
> the verifiable geography because members of society on a larger
> scale (i.e. not just the personal social environment of the owner)
> interact with them on a routine basis.

I'd question this. Noone has to show their private swimming pool or
driveway to anybody, clearly not on a "larger scale". (I am still for
mapping private swimming pools, and driveways, as long as we do not
associate an individual with it, it has nothing to do with privacy.)

> In those cases mostly visually - but that can
> be sufficient.

mostly you can't see private swimming pools from the street, and
according to the area, you also might not be able to see the
driveway.

We might have different ideas of what a driveway is but a private
driveway as i imagine it is part of the verifiable geography among
other things because you have to take notice of cars coming out of
private driveways as you drive along a public road. In other words:
The driveway becomes part of the verifiable geography by being used as
a driveway.

For swimming pools that is certainly a matter of size - large swimming
pools are however major constructions and major users of water supplies
as well as reservoirs of water - to be used for example by firefighters
in an emergency. That is where i would see the interaction on a larger
scale.
I would say that if someone has a private island it is still perfectly fine
to map buildings, driveways*, garden areas there - even if sole source
of map data is an aerial image.

*leading from private palace to a private dock, not connected to
any public road.

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

Re: "Limitations on mapping private information" - wiki page

dieterdreist
In reply to this post by Christoph Hormann-2
Am Mi., 16. Sept. 2020 um 11:44 Uhr schrieb Christoph Hormann <[hidden email]>:
>
> +0.9, I'd make it more precise: "private activities and private
> social interactions"

No, public activities of individual humans are not as such part of the
verifiable geography either.  If my neighbor takes their dog for a walk
on a certain route every day that is a public activity - yet does not
belong in OSM.


I agree it does not belong in OSM because we do not collect information about individual people and because we only map signposted routes. But as you also include "permanent
physical manifestations of those" this must somehow be limited. If my neighbour went everyday at the same spot walking her dog, crossing a lawn and thereby creating a small path, the result is something I would want to map. As long as I don't tell anybody that it was my neighbour walking her dog creating the informal path, there should not be a problem.


We might have different ideas of what a driveway is but a private
driveway as i imagine it is part of the verifiable geography among
other things because you have to take notice of cars coming out of
private driveways as you drive along a public road.  In other words: 
The driveway becomes part of the verifiable geography by being used as
a driveway.


this is only the last part of the driveway, between the gate (if any) and the road, typically it isn't "private" in the sense that it is on public ground, at least in parts.

 

For swimming pools that is certainly a matter of size - large swimming
pools are however major constructions and major users of water supplies
as well as reservoirs of water - to be used for example by firefighters
in an emergency.  That is where i would see the interaction on a larger
scale.


As I said, I do not question that these are useful to map (also as consumers of large quantities of water, I know, currently you can use as much water as you like, if you pay for it, but drinking water is a limited resource on the planet, so also morally I find it ok to map them, besides their usefulness in case of an emergency). But they are not public and the public is not interacting with them "on a larger scale", this is what I wanted to point out.

Cheers
Martin

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

Re: "Limitations on mapping private information" - wiki page

dieterdreist
In reply to this post by General Discussion mailing list
Am Mi., 16. Sept. 2020 um 12:04 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny via talk <[hidden email]>:
Sep 16, 2020, 10:59 by [hidden email]:
I would understand 'semi-public garden' to be, for example, a garden where you pay an admission fee to enter, or one which is closed at night. Like Martin, I would expect these to be completely acceptable to map.
Not a native speaker, not a lawyer. I would describe such areas as public (possibly privately owned).


the term "semi public" for me applies to private property which is accessible by a larger amount of people. It could be a shopping mall, the green areas you may find for shared use in social housing projects (at least those that were built in more socially aware times), also inner courtyards which are accessible during the daytime, generally all accessible private areas.

Cheers
Martin

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

Re: "Limitations on mapping private information" - wiki page

Christoph Hormann-2
In reply to this post by General Discussion mailing list
On Wednesday 16 September 2020, Mateusz Konieczny via talk wrote:
>
> But if they manage to create a path as result of taking the same
> route repeatedly it becomes a mappable feature.
>
> I feel that "permanent physical manifestations of those" includes far
> too many things that are actually mappable.

That is why i wrote "are not *as such* part of the verifiable
geography".

Practically an established (as opposed to constructed) path is usually
the result of the collective activities of many individuals which does
not fall under the criterion of activities of individual humans as
such.

To give you another example (one without any physical manifestation):  
If the driver of a bus routinely stops at a certain place between
regular stops to let on/off a specific individual that is not a bus
stop to be mapped in OSM.  If however that irregular stop starts
getting used by other people as well it becomes a mappable bus stop.

> What about buildings? Many of them are also "physical manifestations
> of those" and not visible from public land. I would still consider
> them as mappable and verifiable - we can do this using aerial images
> and so on.

Land ownership is not a meaningful criterion - otherwise huge parts of
the map would need to stay empty.

Houses serving as private homes are subject to interaction with society
in general on a larger scale for example:

* by serving as an orientation point for navigation
* by being the target of mail and package delivery
* by being the target of door-to-door salespeople
* by being the target of trick-or-treating
* by being a place to walk up to and ring to ask for directions if you
are lost or for help in case of an emergency.

> I would say that if someone has a private island it is still
> perfectly fine to map buildings, driveways*, garden areas there -
> even if sole source of map data is an aerial image.
>
> *leading from private palace to a private dock, not connected to
> any public road.

Practically such places are usually subject to quite significant
interaction with society in general - like for example staff,
craftspeople, construction workers etc.  As a whole and in its larger
structures like you mentioned i do not see how this would typically
qualify as physical manifestations of activities of *individual*
humans.  Just because an individual pays for larger scale activities
does not necessarily make these activities those of that individual.

The private island case is limited simply by basic practical
verifiability.  What you can see on imagery taken from outside is
verifiable, everything else is not.  Actual privacy issue (like someone
doing detailed indoor mapping with the help of a telescope) is probably
less an issue here than for an individual house.

Or in other words:  Rich people cannot claim a larger scope of privacy
just because they can own and fence in a larger area of land.

--
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

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

Re: "Limitations on mapping private information" - wiki page

dieterdreist


Am Mi., 16. Sept. 2020 um 13:30 Uhr schrieb Christoph Hormann <[hidden email]>:
Or in other words:  Rich people cannot claim a larger scope of privacy
just because they can own and fence in a larger area of land.


you are dreaming. Maybe they cannot rightfully claim a different treatment, but clearly they will benefit from more privacy through physical distance (compensated by more interest in their life and property, they might end up having less privacy).

Cheers
Martin

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

Re: "Limitations on mapping private information" - wiki page

General Discussion mailing list
In reply to this post by General Discussion mailing list
The first two bullet points are poorly worded:

building=house is "where individual people live".

"There is no need to split residential landuse into individual plots."
if that means the actual tag landuse=residential, then I'd probably agree, but there is nothing wrong with this level of detail mapping:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/52.51352/-1.85486

The wording , as it's written currently, contradicts the last point, which I believe to be correct.

The other points fall under "too transient to map".

DaveF



On 16/09/2020 08:17, Mateusz Konieczny via talk wrote:

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.

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


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