OnAugust 31, 2020 at 1:12:09 AM PDT, Frederik Ramm <frede...@remote.org> wrote: > The same *will* happen to OSM; it is possible that today we can still > get away with shenanigans like tagging a tourist attraction with "wink > wink access=no but everybody goes there anyway" ... > But we won't be able > to deny this responsibility forever, at least if we record our data in a > way that can easily lead to misinterpretation. > > And in my view, tagging something as "desirable to go there" via a > tourism=* tag, no matter how many > access=no/private/only_under_cover_of_darkness we add to that, that > would be disingenious.
It seems part of the friction here is that we DO use the tourism key to denote a viewpoint. While it is true that tourists love to go to a viewpoint and "take it all in," the logical converse of "all viewpoints are for tourists" is false: I have enjoyed many viewpoints, entered them into OSM and I'm not a tourist, but a local hiker. So as we say "tourism=viewpoint" this means exactly "viewpoint here." Even if OSM is asked the direct question "Should tourists go here?" OSM is silent on the answer, because OSM doesn't say (at all) how our data "should" be used. Our data are there to be used according to the terms of OSM's ODbL. People with good judgement who see the trail to the place is tagged access=no might be quizzical, but they will select another place to hike. People with bad judgement? OSM isn't responsible for their decisions. Let me repeat that: OSM isn't responsible for users of its data exercising bad judgement. We aren't doing anything illegal by entering data in our database, let's not kid ourselves. One might call OSM's syntactical choice of "tourism=viewpoint" unfortunate, confusing, easy to misinterpret or even disingenuous, but two facts ARE true: 1), this IS how we tag a viewpoint (though, with some effort, we could change this), 2), simply because we DO, this does not imply or encourage tourists (or anybody) to visit the site, especially if the path to get there is tagged access=no (based on the black-letter-law on the sign). There is no winking going on (in my mind, in this example, or where I map). In the case of Frederik's example website where (violence is incited? murder is encouraged?) it is abused by bad actors, I don't believe the analogy holds: here, the incitement of violence or the encouragement of murder are violations of law. (While we do have our First Amendment here, enshrining the right that at a federal level, no law prohibiting free speech shall be enacted, there are exceptions, these are some of them, and for good reasons). If OSM mis-tags here or there (while largely well-tagging places which are "closed" or "no access") this is not deliberate, illegal "incitement" as the crime is defined (I am not an attorney), it is simply data entered in a database to aid navigation. OSM does not claim to be error-free, and it does not (actively or passively) "encourage" any particular sort of behavior. It simply states "what is" (in the real world, to the extent mappers have taken the time to accurately and with detail afforded by our syntax, which may be partial or relatively complete). Frederik's example of the European mtb_scale tags is similar in that data in a database do not actively encourage anybody to exercise bad judgement. Frederik might apply the same logic as "what the DWG typically does:" simply add an access=no to the tags, leaving the mtb_scale tags intact. Otherwise, we become redactors (deleters) of data dependent on our wholly subjective judgement of what "should belong" in a map, rather than "what is, in the real world, to a certain granularity of detail..." in a map. That is censorship, always a ticklish topic in cartography and expressions of the real world by representations of it. If this list (in another thread) wants to further discuss this difficult subject, we should, though we should while calling it a discussion of when, if, whether and how OSM contributors should censor data. > And @Mateusz, I am not convinced that "there are great views from here" > is sufficient for tourism=viewpoint because it is too subjective. With > that reasoning, someone with a personal low bar for "great views" could > plaster the map with tourism=viewpoint. Such subjectivity is what makes OSM, um, interesting. A highway=primary might be a fast four-lane road in North America or Europe, or a wide hard-packed track only suitable for high-clearance vehicles which can ford waterways in Africa or Australia. "The right balance of how many viewpoints there are in this area of the map" seems like a local / regional decision. Such subjectivity likely can't always (as in this case) come from a single definitive source or wiki entry, though wiki guidance about using good judgement USING subjective criteria can help. I don't see as a major problem in OSM "we have too many viewpoints around here because of low-bar subjectivity!" Sure, that COULD happen, but it's too much of a "what if" to seriously consider restricting viewpoint addition with strict criteria (like it must be signed, benched or on another map). OSM tends to "self-heal" if it runs away with itself like this. (Strong local volunteers who mentor and grow novice users and establish wide consensus greatly helps, too). Too long, stopping here, SteveA _______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
