Re: [Tagging] landuse:illegal and illegal:yes/no
2011/3/30 Nathan Edgars II : > On 3/30/2011 9:20 AM, Pieren wrote: >> Perhaps on this particular proposal, we have some cultural >> misunderstanding . In many countries, you have illegal buildings, >> illegal garbage dumps, illegal access restrictions, etc. Even when they >> are convicted by court, the situation is not corrected (lack of >> authorities/means/police, corruption, etc) and only local people knows >> that such building, dump or access restriction is illegal. +1 >> Also environmental organizations are fighting against illegal dumps. So >> why would you not allow OSM to locate them ? Is it not one motto of OSM >> to rely on local knowledge ? And if we have disputes, then we already >> have a process for that, like any other tags. > You also have legal buildings, legal garbage dumps, legal access > restrictions, etc., that are just as bad as the illegal ones. Environmental > organizations are fighting against legal dumps as well as illegal ones. And? We are already tagging official garbage dumps, why shouldn't we tag unofficial/illegal/informal ones? I feel that in this topic there is big cultural differences. While some people say: go to the police / court, others see the necessity/wish to tag them in OSM. Why should we hinder them? Some of these issues I couldn't believe them myself, but living now in a country, where even in the third biggest city the garbage is frequently illegally deposited in the settlements/suburbs (e.g. see here http://www.newnotizie.it/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Rifiuti-napoli.jpg or search pictures for "rifiuti napoli") I am beginning to understand the desire to tag this stuff. Maybe it is the wording "illegal" which creates opposition? What if we called it informal? I already use informal=yes for paths, but it could just as well be extended to garbage dumps and a lot of other stuff. The common word in Italy is "abusive" (would this work in English?), and it is used for everything from people (immigrants without formal documents / rights to stay) to houses (built in nature reserves or other zones not declared for constructing and/or without building permission and/or with clandestine employment and/or more then allowed) to garbage dumps, fences and so on. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] landuse:illegal and illegal:yes/no
On 3/30/2011 9:20 AM, Pieren wrote: Perhaps on this particular proposal, we have some cultural misunderstanding . In many countries, you have illegal buildings, illegal garbage dumps, illegal access restrictions, etc. Even when they are convicted by court, the situation is not corrected (lack of authorities/means/police, corruption, etc) and only local people knows that such building, dump or access restriction is illegal. Also environmental organizations are fighting against illegal dumps. So why would you not allow OSM to locate them ? Is it not one motto of OSM to rely on local knowledge ? And if we have disputes, then we already have a process for that, like any other tags. You also have legal buildings, legal garbage dumps, legal access restrictions, etc., that are just as bad as the illegal ones. Environmental organizations are fighting against legal dumps as well as illegal ones. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] landuse:illegal and illegal:yes/no
Perhaps on this particular proposal, we have some cultural misunderstanding . In many countries, you have illegal buildings, illegal garbage dumps, illegal access restrictions, etc. Even when they are convicted by court, the situation is not corrected (lack of authorities/means/police, corruption, etc) and only local people knows that such building, dump or access restriction is illegal. Also environmental organizations are fighting against illegal dumps. So why would you not allow OSM to locate them ? Is it not one motto of OSM to rely on local knowledge ? And if we have disputes, then we already have a process for that, like any other tags. Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] landuse:illegal and illegal:yes/no
On 3/30/2011 7:32 AM, Pieren wrote: On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 10:35 AM, Nathan Edgars II mailto:nerou...@gmail.com>> wrote: Why do we care if it's illegal? And why do we care about opening hours or phone numbers ? It's the same arguments... We care about those because of the part of what I wrote that you snipped out. Read it. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] landuse:illegal and illegal:yes/no
Pieren> In general, I'm also against tagging what is not physical and Pieren> immediatly "verifiable" attributes. But hey, the idea of indicating the Pieren> legal status is not worst than many other tags already widely used. I disagree. Pieren> And it is verifiable, Pieren> not easy but it is (not less, for instance, than the power lines voltage). The power line voltage is gleaned from signs, which is how we get many of our features. I only know what street I'm on based on the sign that tells me so. If there was an official sign that said "Illegal dumping, 300m", I'd be more inclined to listen to this proposal. Peter> First, it's not simple and measurable, at least I really wonder how Peter> many of us measured an incline which isn't signed (I have tried, takes Peter> time and a bit of math, and I don't even play it for most of the Peter> cases). How many of us know what a street is other than by official signs? Peter> Second, both, but especially smoothness (and all subjective tags, Peter> since I personally find smoothness very useful and informative) Peter> depends on the judgement of the mapper. Your argument about smoothness is why people prefer to know the road material than the subjective "smoothness". Peter> For example if I see a concrete pipe which clearly 100 years Peter> old I wouldn't, but when I see one hiding under bushes and clearly Peter>built this spring I'd say it's hardly "legal", This case is perfect, since it illustrates that you're basically deciding something you feel is suspicious is illegal. You have no idea if that pipe is there legally or not. Serge> "illegal use" is not as easily measurable in the same way.It's similar Serge> to proposals to classify places as "dangerous". Peter> Indeed similar. My point was that "dangerous" was rejected as a tag. It's just too problematic to use. Serge> That's very subjective- it's why we have courts! Peter> OSM will never go there and force the people to remove the pipe. Peter> That's for the courts. But we can tell other walkersby about it. No one's arguing that there may not be value in the data you want to collect, only that OSM may not be the place for it, just as there's a lot of useful information that's not appropriate for Wikipedia. Serge> I think there are so many reasons why this tag is a bad idea it's Serge> almost not worth bringing any individual reasons. Peter> Such "blocking" comments are not really very cooperative. If you cite Peter> those so many reasons they might be accepted or rejected, but Peter> nobody can help you with those theoretical "so many reasons" This is a fair criticism. The problems with this tag are that it's: 1. Far more subjective than other accepted tags 2. Carries a lot of weight. It's a serious thing to accuse someone/something of being illegal. 3. Libelous, in that this is an accusation. 4. Outside the scope of the project, unlike any other tag we have. 5. This tag seems to beg for an edit war. 6. Apt to change very frequently. 7. Activism/advocate. OSM is not advocating positions. That's why even in the case of political borders, there's sensitivity in how it's handled. I think this data belongs in another dataset- not OSM. - Serge ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] landuse:illegal and illegal:yes/no
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 10:35 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: > Why do we care if it's illegal? > > And why do we care about opening hours or phone numbers ? It's the same arguments... Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] landuse:illegal and illegal:yes/no
On 3/30/2011 3:00 AM, Peter Gervai wrote: On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 02:59, Serge Wroclawski wrote: For example, if I see waste water dumping, is this now illegal=yes? What if someone else doesn't think it's illegal? Now it has to go to court. And that's where it belongs. What OSM does care about that? We tag the illegal dumping, so people who like to avoid hiking in sewers wouldn't go there, or local cleanup teams can filter on the objects and go after it, or whatever purpose people can figure. If someone complains that it isn't illegal, I'd say we probably happily remove the tag, and put a note that someone claimed it, that's great, we fixed an object information with source. Why do we care if it's illegal? What we would care about is that there's hazardous waste in the water, whether or not it's legal. You have your decision making in your head. Why would you tag it as illegal? For example if I see a concrete pipe which clearly 100 years old I wouldn't, but when I see one hiding under bushes and clearly built this spring I'd say it's hardly "legal", and I would give good chance to courts say the same if they would care at all (which they really don't, mind you). If it's hiding under bushes that may be for visual mitigation purposes. It may very well be legal in many places to dump bad stuff into water, especially if that water is a closed basin or upstream of some beefy filtering equipment. As I said above, a theoretical swimmer doesn't care if it's legal - he wants to know that there's something bad there, period. So hazard=factory regularly dumps benzene in water is much more useful than illegal=yes (and more correct if the dumping is legal). ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] landuse:illegal and illegal:yes/no
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 9:00 AM, Peter Gervai wrote: > > I think there are so many reasons why this tag is a bad idea > > If court decides its not illegal then great (if we know about it), we > remove the tag, even can reference the decision, and we made the map > better. If it was illegal then, hey, we were right. > In general, I'm also against tagging what is not physical and immediatly "verifiable" attributes. But hey, the idea of indicating the legal status is not worst than many other tags already widely used. And it is verifiable, not easy but it is (not less, for instance, than the power lines voltage). My concern is more about the tag name itself. We fall in the same trap as the disused=yes. It has the advantage that you don't have to set any special rules for renderers but you also take the risk that many data consumers will ignore this status and consider the object as 'usable'. We have this problem with disused railways or roads. We will have it for illegal dumps, illegal constructions or illegal business. Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] landuse:illegal and illegal:yes/no
Hello, On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 02:59, Serge Wroclawski wrote: > On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 10:46 AM, Peter Gervai wrote: >> On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 15:21, Bill Ricker wrote: >>> Under the usual rule-of-thumb, to map what's visible on the ground >>> (signed or built), >> >> Like smoothness=, incline=, etc? > > Those are simple, measurable things. First, it's not simple and measurable, at least I really wonder how many of us measured an incline which isn't signed (I have tried, takes time and a bit of math, and I don't even play it for most of the cases). Second, both, but especially smoothness (and all subjective tags, since I personally find smoothness very useful and informative) depends on the judgement of the mapper. I think it is normal to expect mappers to have common sense and good judgement, which is the base of all the mapping activities anyway. We usually decide what's a track and what's a path, whether a road is service or residential or simply unclassified, et cetera. All are pretty subjective. And third: they're not "physical objects", they are attributes, which was my point here. > "illegal use" is not as easily measurable in the same way.It's similar > to proposals to classify places as "dangerous". Indeed similar. And I agree in both that it cannot be measured (like smoothness or grade type or mtb grade) and there is no easy way to standardise. But I do not think this makes it somehow exceptionally unusual in the OSM environment. >>> "Illegal use", in those words or similar. (Or tagged so by a suitably >>> free Govt GIS file.) >> >> Incidentally sometimes that's the case, as it turned out. > > I think there are so many reasons why this tag is a bad idea it's > almost not worth bringing any individual reasons. Such "blocking" comments are not really very cooperative. If you cite those so many reasons they might be accepted or rejected, but nobody can help you with those theoretical "so many reasons". I've heard very good ones against the tag, and some which simply required a bit more specification, but I cannot do anything about the "so many reasons" you just mentioned. :-) (Of course it's probably not useful to reiterate that what's been already said.) >>> Anything else, an OSM member is making a value judgment and OSM is >>> publishing it as a fact, which has legal consequences in most >>> countries. OSM has a legal entity in UK which is democracy most >>> favorable to libel tourists, where Truth is NOT a defense. (The new >>> coalition gov't is looking at reform but don't bet you assets on it.) >> >> But then you can be sued on virtually anything, like stating there is >> a road when the owner thinks otherwise, or state its smoothness as >> "horrible" which is clearly offensive, etc. Obviously it's quite >> acceptable if you request the addendum for this tag not to be used in >> the UK. :-) > > Let's not resort to hyberbole. The original comment stated a theoretical problem which I may find very unlikely to happen, and I believe it's probably the same probability that someone (like a local gov't official) gets offended that his pet road was called "horrible". > If you saw something illegal, presumably you'd report it to the proper > authority. And again, you have been ignoring my comment about wording. If "illegal" have the strong connection to "law" then please help me find a word which conveys the same meaning but in the common sense view. > For example, if I see waste water dumping, is this now illegal=yes? > What if someone else doesn't think it's illegal? Now it has to go to > court. And that's where it belongs. What OSM does care about that? We tag the illegal dumping, so people who like to avoid hiking in sewers wouldn't go there, or local cleanup teams can filter on the objects and go after it, or whatever purpose people can figure. If someone complains that it isn't illegal, I'd say we probably happily remove the tag, and put a note that someone claimed it, that's great, we fixed an object information with source. If court decides its not illegal then great (if we know about it), we remove the tag, even can reference the decision, and we made the map better. If it was illegal then, hey, we were right. The puspose is not to attribute that law decided something is not legal, but to attribute things which are not what thy look like, or things which shouldn't be there, etc. Again, you're most than welcome to fix the wording. > You can say "There is a pipe here with water coming out"- but illegal? You have your decision making in your head. Why would you tag it as illegal? For example if I see a concrete pipe which clearly 100 years old I wouldn't, but when I see one hiding under bushes and clearly built this spring I'd say it's hardly "legal", and I would give good chance to courts say the same if they would care at all (which they really don't, mind you). > That's very subjective- it's why we have courts! OSM will never go there and force the people to remove the
