OSM comprises data but data are produced and interpreted by fallible humans. I would argue that OSM doesn't "simply say" anything, because the act of defining tags is a subjective process negotiated between individuals with different ideas about, for example, what a "viewpoint" is. It's not a simple matter of recording altitude or what type of rock formation is in a location. We are defining what a lot of these data will be and how they will be communicated through OSM to the users, and that has an impact on how those users interpret the world. There's a certain amount of responsibility inherent to that process. And if we are going to take the tactic of simply putting "what is" on the map, then I would argue we should only include viewpoints that are officially signed as such. Otherwise the process of deciding which ones are included and which ones are becomes too subjective and will never accurately reflect "what is".
I think Kevin provides a lot of really good examples of edge cases that make a blanket rule difficult to develop, I appreciate you sharing them. Creative usage of tagging might be the best way to approach those types of situations, although I wonder how many OSM users will use that metadata, as opposed simply looking at the locations on a map. The stories also speak to the idea that people will find these places even if they aren't on OSM, and it makes me wonder if OSM needs to include every trail and viewpoint known to man (especially the story of the city folk being turned back for safety concerns). Sidenote: this discussion is such a great example of complicated it is to produce a map, I'm very much enjoying it. -- Brian On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 2:33 AM Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-us < talk-us@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > > > > 31 Aug 2020, 05:38 by stevea...@softworkers.com: > > On Aug 30, 2020, at 5:50 PM, Brian Stromberg <brian.stromb...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > I would argue that maps can only show the world as the mapmaker wants it > to be shown, and OSM should probably not be encouraging people (in any way) > to be visiting sites that are clearly marked as illegal to visit. This > seems like a bad precedent to set. I would include the bunker but not mark > it as tourism. People will find it if they want to, whatever OSM tags it > as, so it doesn't seem necessary to participate/encourage in whatever > degree of illegality the access entails. > > > And here is where some disagree: OSM does not "encourage." OSM is data. It > simply says "this is" and "these are." OSM does not encourage people (in > any way) to visit a site or trespass. It is a collection of data (of "what > is") expressed as a map. Full stop. > > At the same time we know that viewpoint > data can be used, is used and it's typical > use is to display interesting locations > worth visiting. > _______________________________________________ > Talk-us mailing list > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us >
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
