Re: [OSM-talk] California bill to limit detail on online mappingtools
That's ridiculous. The solution is obvious: if a way or point is tagged as amenity=school, etc, then the database will automatically add noise to the coordinates: lat = lat + 0.001 * random(1000) Regards, Juan Lucas On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 10:27 AM, OJ W May I suggest a new tag: landuse=blur Pieren ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] California bill to limit detail on online mappingtools
On Fri, 13 Mar 2009 12:28:40 +0100, Juan Lucas Dominguez Rubio jldoming...@prodevelop.es wrote: That's ridiculous. The solution is obvious: if a way or point is tagged as amenity=school, etc, then the database will automatically add noise to the coordinates: lat = lat + 0.001 * random(1000) On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 10:27 AM, OJ W May I suggest a new tag: landuse=blur ROTFL. But remember to only apply it to schools of one state of one country. We don't want the rest of the planet to look like fools too. ;) (Who is to blame for voting that guy into office?) Marcus ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] California bill to limit detail on online mappingtools
On Fri, 13 Mar 2009 11:59:33 - Ed Loach e...@loach.me.uk wrote: Is it me, or is blurring out the bits you don’t want to be targets just going to highlight where they are? I'm not sure that blurring is what would happen, simply not showing the data would be what happens. But you're right, by having a blank or blurred section of an otherwise detailed map just shows that there is something of interest there. The more sensible option would be to map the area in high enough detail to not be obviously blurred but not so high as it'll be useful. Take for example what Ordnance Survey do with sensitive military sites, map enough of it to not have a blank bit but label it as something as innocuous as possible. -- Alice ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] California bill to limit detail on online mappingtools
Ed Loach = evil genius On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 12:59 PM, Ed Loach e...@loach.me.uk wrote: Is it me, or is blurring out the bits you don’t want to be targets just going to highlight where they are? Ed ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- Tel: +44(0) 7814 517 807 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] California bill to limit detail on online mappingtools
but: lat = lat + 0.001 * random(1000) might encourage the use of cluster bombs, carpet bombing and other weapons of mass destruction. Better to give the exact co-ordinates of the air duct - so as to reduce collateral damage. :-) PY ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] California bill to limit detail on online mappingtools
I'm not sure that blurring is what would happen, simply not showing the data would be what happens. But you're right, by having a blank or blurred section of an otherwise detailed map just shows that there is something of interest there. Well, even if that stupid law would get to reality, it won't have any effect on data we supply - as we don't provide any satellite imagery, we won't have to blur anything (plus OSM does not reside in california). We could theoretically even mark all the ducts or map these sensitive sites in ridiculous amount of detail, thought I doubt anybody wants to do it. The more sensible option would be to map the area in high enough detail to not be obviously blurred but not so high as it'll be useful. Take for example what Ordnance Survey do with sensitive military sites, map enough of it to not have a blank bit but label it as something as innocuous as possible. Or do not label it at all - there are many maps with unnamed buildings and you'll never know from the map if it is just another factory area, warehouse or some secret military installation, even if all buildings, roads and tracks between them are mapped very accurately (though you may discover that when you approach that area in person). I remember from one discussion about this law, that someone said that in later revision of that law the blur will have to be replaced by targeting mark, to better reflect reality :) Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] California bill to limit detail on online mappingtools
On 13 Mar 2009 at 14:00 MP singular...@gmail.com wrote about Re: [OSM-talk] California bill to l[...] The more sensible option would be [...] not have a blank bit but label it as something as innocuous as possible. Or do not label it at all - there are many maps with unnamed buildings and you'll never know from the map if it is just another factory area, warehouse or some secret military installation, even if all buildings, roads and tracks between them are mapped very accurately (though you may discover that when you approach that area in person). But with all the diligent mappers working on OSM, the map slowly ratchets towards higher accuracy. The tags that identify buildings, land use, air ducts and air shafts increase and become more accurate over time. Like with everything else Internet-ish, the genie is out of the bottle and refuses to go back in, and no legislation can make it. --Bob. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
