Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] "Limitations on mapping private information" - wiki page
Not until the page is finalized and accepted by the community. Until then, it is a draft, and it is frowned upon to mix such controversial drafts into the main namespace On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 4:38 PM Jez Nicholson wrote: > > "why this page resides in the main > namespace and not in the responsible proposer's user space?" - it's a wiki, > we are generally a libertarian group, there are no restrictions on creating a > page other than wanting to be relevant. I personally find it relevant. > > On Wed, 16 Sep 2020, 14:47 bkil, wrote: >> >> Could someone perhaps clarify why this page resides in the main >> namespace and not in the responsible proposer's user space? >> >> > Do not name individuals in OpenStreetMap tags, unless their name is on a >> > business sign posted towards the street, or part of the business name and >> > available in public records. >> > >> >> What if the name of the operator is printed on each receipt when you >> shop there or a certificate is placed on the wall that shows it? We >> usually add that to operator=*. >> >> Indeed I think that the article confuses mapped things that are >> worthless and mapped things that are dangerous (according to GDPR). >> >> For example, the reason why we don't map private washing machines is >> that its location and capacity is not information that is in public >> interest (hence why it is not a POI). Another reason that it fails the >> verifiability criterion: if I want to check that the position and type >> information of the washing machine is still accurate, I need to ring >> the doorbell and be invited in to see for myself, but it is not >> realistic that an owner would invite dozens of potentially malicious >> random people into their house just for this. >> >> Even if the object would be visible from the outside, it is of no use >> to 99.% of individuals if the owner does not let me do my laundry >> there. If a TV is fully and clearly visible from the outside through >> the window, it _may_ serve a public utility of entertainment if you >> can lip read, but you need to ring the doorbell each time you want to >> switch channels... >> >> Private parking and driveways are acceptable because it hints at which >> way the entrance is - helping delivery personal and guests alike. I've >> mapped some very interesting hilly terrain where this can be >> especially useful, as roads were pretty dense and the road towards >> where the entrance is was not trivial and a failed guess could cost >> you a few more minutes of walking or driving for each house. >> >> Private swimming pools aren't that interesting but people seem to >> enjoy tracing them. Maybe in case of emergency they could be used as a >> nearby water source by the fire brigade? >> >> From the privacy section, am I reading correctly that you suggest that >> you find it acceptable to map each tomb in a cemetery by name? >> >> I think a lot of considerations are missing in this article other than >> those stemming from the GDPR, like military and national >> considerations. You also do not mention that there exist regions where >> mapping activities are forbidden by the law and punishable by prison >> sentence. And anyway other than describing "what is worthless to map", >> I think you are trying to basically gather "mapping ethics", and maybe >> this should be better be done in Wikipedia because it does not only >> concern OpenStreetMap, but any mapping provider. >> >> On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 3:15 PM Niels Elgaard Larsen wrote: >> > >> > Mateusz Konieczny via talk: >> > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Limitations_on_mapping_private_information >> > > >> > > 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. >> > >> > >> > >> > I think we should avoid language such as "There is no need to split >> > residential >> > landuse into individual plots". >> > >> > Of course there is a need for someone somewhere to tag just about >> > everything. >> > For example, if you want to buy a house you would want to see where the >> > plot is. >> > >> > This is not about needs, but about privacy, and maybe data quality. >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Niels Elgaard Larsen >> > >> > ___ >> > Tagging mailing list >> > Tagging@openstreetmap.org >> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >> >> ___ >> Tagging mailing list >> Tagging@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://li
Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] "Limitations on mapping private information" - wiki page
You misunderstood me. I don't _care_ about private swimming pools and I don't think they are public interest. I don't think that mapping them can get us trouble with GDPR. You see that's my problem with a page like this: it blurs the line between ethics, legals and recommending to map things that add the greatest value to the largest number of users. I think these should have their separate pages. On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 4:39 PM Paul Allen wrote: > > On Wed, 16 Sep 2020 at 14:47, bkil wrote: >> >> >> Private swimming pools aren't that interesting but people seem to >> enjoy tracing them. Maybe in case of emergency they could be used as a >> nearby water source by the fire brigade? > > > Depending on the terrain, they may be visible and serve as navigational > references. "If I'm where I think I am, there should be a house with a > swimming pool in that direction." > > Also, swimming pools are not people and have no right to privacy under > the GDPR. > > Also, aerial imagery exists. People can look at such imagery in Google > Maps, Bing Maps, etc. If you don't want people knowing you have > a swimming pool then build a cover over it or bribe all the aerial imagery > companies to doctor their images so your swimming pool isn't visible. >> >> >> From the privacy section, am I reading correctly that you suggest that >> you find it acceptable to map each tomb in a cemetery by name? > > > I've mapped a few tombs by name. They're large, elaborate, and > (most importantly) are "listed buildings" meaning they are of > cultural significance and protected by law. I wouldn't bother > mapping any other tombs in a cemetery, not unless I ran out > of things to map (that isn't going to happen). > >> I think you are trying to basically gather "mapping ethics", and maybe >> this should be better be done in Wikipedia because it does not only >> concern OpenStreetMap, but any mapping provider. > > > And what if OSM feels those generic mapping ethics are too lax? > We'll end up with our own, one way or another. Even if it's only > guidance as to how to interpret generic ethics in the context of > the OSM mapping model. > > -- > Paul > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] "Limitations on mapping private information" - wiki page
Please don't crossthread newsgroups. If you have to alert the few who don't subscribe to both, post a message telling them it's on another newsgroup. DaveF On 16/09/2020 14:11, Niels Elgaard Larsen wrote: Mateusz Konieczny via talk: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Limitations_on_mapping_private_information 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. I think we should avoid language such as "There is no need to split residential landuse into individual plots". Of course there is a need for someone somewhere to tag just about everything. For example, if you want to buy a house you would want to see where the plot is. This is not about needs, but about privacy, and maybe data quality. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] "Limitations on mapping private information" - wiki page
On Wed, 16 Sep 2020 at 14:47, bkil wrote: > > Private swimming pools aren't that interesting but people seem to > enjoy tracing them. Maybe in case of emergency they could be used as a > nearby water source by the fire brigade? > Depending on the terrain, they may be visible and serve as navigational references. "If I'm where I think I am, there should be a house with a swimming pool in that direction." Also, swimming pools are not people and have no right to privacy under the GDPR. Also, aerial imagery exists. People can look at such imagery in Google Maps, Bing Maps, etc. If you don't want people knowing you have a swimming pool then build a cover over it or bribe all the aerial imagery companies to doctor their images so your swimming pool isn't visible. > > From the privacy section, am I reading correctly that you suggest that > you find it acceptable to map each tomb in a cemetery by name? > I've mapped a few tombs by name. They're large, elaborate, and (most importantly) are "listed buildings" meaning they are of cultural significance and protected by law. I wouldn't bother mapping any other tombs in a cemetery, not unless I ran out of things to map (that isn't going to happen). I think you are trying to basically gather "mapping ethics", and maybe > this should be better be done in Wikipedia because it does not only > concern OpenStreetMap, but any mapping provider. > And what if OSM feels those generic mapping ethics are too lax? We'll end up with our own, one way or another. Even if it's only guidance as to how to interpret generic ethics in the context of the OSM mapping model. -- Paul ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] "Limitations on mapping private information" - wiki page
"why this page resides in the main namespace and not in the responsible proposer's user space?" - it's a wiki, we are generally a libertarian group, there are no restrictions on creating a page other than wanting to be relevant. I personally find it relevant. On Wed, 16 Sep 2020, 14:47 bkil, wrote: > Could someone perhaps clarify why this page resides in the main > namespace and not in the responsible proposer's user space? > > > Do not name individuals in OpenStreetMap tags, unless their name is on a > business sign posted towards the street, or part of the business name and > available in public records. > > > > What if the name of the operator is printed on each receipt when you > shop there or a certificate is placed on the wall that shows it? We > usually add that to operator=*. > > Indeed I think that the article confuses mapped things that are > worthless and mapped things that are dangerous (according to GDPR). > > For example, the reason why we don't map private washing machines is > that its location and capacity is not information that is in public > interest (hence why it is not a POI). Another reason that it fails the > verifiability criterion: if I want to check that the position and type > information of the washing machine is still accurate, I need to ring > the doorbell and be invited in to see for myself, but it is not > realistic that an owner would invite dozens of potentially malicious > random people into their house just for this. > > Even if the object would be visible from the outside, it is of no use > to 99.% of individuals if the owner does not let me do my laundry > there. If a TV is fully and clearly visible from the outside through > the window, it _may_ serve a public utility of entertainment if you > can lip read, but you need to ring the doorbell each time you want to > switch channels... > > Private parking and driveways are acceptable because it hints at which > way the entrance is - helping delivery personal and guests alike. I've > mapped some very interesting hilly terrain where this can be > especially useful, as roads were pretty dense and the road towards > where the entrance is was not trivial and a failed guess could cost > you a few more minutes of walking or driving for each house. > > Private swimming pools aren't that interesting but people seem to > enjoy tracing them. Maybe in case of emergency they could be used as a > nearby water source by the fire brigade? > > From the privacy section, am I reading correctly that you suggest that > you find it acceptable to map each tomb in a cemetery by name? > > I think a lot of considerations are missing in this article other than > those stemming from the GDPR, like military and national > considerations. You also do not mention that there exist regions where > mapping activities are forbidden by the law and punishable by prison > sentence. And anyway other than describing "what is worthless to map", > I think you are trying to basically gather "mapping ethics", and maybe > this should be better be done in Wikipedia because it does not only > concern OpenStreetMap, but any mapping provider. > > On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 3:15 PM Niels Elgaard Larsen > wrote: > > > > Mateusz Konieczny via talk: > > > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Limitations_on_mapping_private_information > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > I think we should avoid language such as "There is no need to split > residential > > landuse into individual plots". > > > > Of course there is a need for someone somewhere to tag just about > everything. > > For example, if you want to buy a house you would want to see where the > plot is. > > > > This is not about needs, but about privacy, and maybe data quality. > > > > > > -- > > Niels Elgaard Larsen > > > > ___ > > Tagging mailing list > > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] "Limitations on mapping private information" - wiki page
Could someone perhaps clarify why this page resides in the main namespace and not in the responsible proposer's user space? > Do not name individuals in OpenStreetMap tags, unless their name is on a > business sign posted towards the street, or part of the business name and > available in public records. > What if the name of the operator is printed on each receipt when you shop there or a certificate is placed on the wall that shows it? We usually add that to operator=*. Indeed I think that the article confuses mapped things that are worthless and mapped things that are dangerous (according to GDPR). For example, the reason why we don't map private washing machines is that its location and capacity is not information that is in public interest (hence why it is not a POI). Another reason that it fails the verifiability criterion: if I want to check that the position and type information of the washing machine is still accurate, I need to ring the doorbell and be invited in to see for myself, but it is not realistic that an owner would invite dozens of potentially malicious random people into their house just for this. Even if the object would be visible from the outside, it is of no use to 99.% of individuals if the owner does not let me do my laundry there. If a TV is fully and clearly visible from the outside through the window, it _may_ serve a public utility of entertainment if you can lip read, but you need to ring the doorbell each time you want to switch channels... Private parking and driveways are acceptable because it hints at which way the entrance is - helping delivery personal and guests alike. I've mapped some very interesting hilly terrain where this can be especially useful, as roads were pretty dense and the road towards where the entrance is was not trivial and a failed guess could cost you a few more minutes of walking or driving for each house. Private swimming pools aren't that interesting but people seem to enjoy tracing them. Maybe in case of emergency they could be used as a nearby water source by the fire brigade? From the privacy section, am I reading correctly that you suggest that you find it acceptable to map each tomb in a cemetery by name? I think a lot of considerations are missing in this article other than those stemming from the GDPR, like military and national considerations. You also do not mention that there exist regions where mapping activities are forbidden by the law and punishable by prison sentence. And anyway other than describing "what is worthless to map", I think you are trying to basically gather "mapping ethics", and maybe this should be better be done in Wikipedia because it does not only concern OpenStreetMap, but any mapping provider. On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 3:15 PM Niels Elgaard Larsen wrote: > > Mateusz Konieczny via talk: > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Limitations_on_mapping_private_information > > > > 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. > > > > I think we should avoid language such as "There is no need to split > residential > landuse into individual plots". > > Of course there is a need for someone somewhere to tag just about everything. > For example, if you want to buy a house you would want to see where the plot > is. > > This is not about needs, but about privacy, and maybe data quality. > > > -- > Niels Elgaard Larsen > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] "Limitations on mapping private information" - wiki page
Mateusz Konieczny via talk: > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Limitations_on_mapping_private_information > > 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. I think we should avoid language such as "There is no need to split residential landuse into individual plots". Of course there is a need for someone somewhere to tag just about everything. For example, if you want to buy a house you would want to see where the plot is. This is not about needs, but about privacy, and maybe data quality. -- Niels Elgaard Larsen ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] "Limitations on mapping private information" - wiki page
Mateusz Konieczny via talk: > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Limitations_on_mapping_private_information > > 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. I think we should avoid language such as "There is no need to split residential landuse into individual plots". Of course there is a need for someone somewhere to tag just about everything. For example, if you want to buy a house you would want to see where the plot is. This is not about needs, but about privacy, and maybe data quality. -- Niels Elgaard Larsen ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
