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 ma
Thanks, I was looking for exactly this one!
Sep 15, 2020, 21:16 by www.ha...@gmail.com:
> It was called Show me the Way ( > https://osmlab.github.io/show-me-the-way/>
> ).
>
> Greetings
>
> Michał
>
> wt., 15 wrz 2020, 21:11 użytkownik Mateusz Konieczny via talk <>
> talk@openstreetmap.org> >
sent from a phone
> On 16. Sep 2020, at 09:41, Mateusz Konieczny via talk
> wrote:
>
> Do you think that this page is a good description of community consensus?
There are some points I would like to comment on:
-
OpenStreetMap is not a property registry, thus do not map individual ownersh
Hi,
On 16.09.20 09:17, Mateusz Konieczny via talk wrote:
> Do you think that this page is a good description of community consensus?
I think it is about right. I have added a section on "other reasons not
to map" which is out of scope of the page, but I wouldn't want people to
say "X is not liste
Hi,
I added a section explaining that the concept of privacy applies only to
living human beings.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.open
On Wednesday 16 September 2020, Mateusz Konieczny via talk wrote:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Limitations_on_mapping_private_in
>formation
I think while that page does not contain gross factual errors as far as
i see it could be fairly misleading for people unfamiliar with OSM
otherwis
On Wed, 16 Sep 2020 at 18:04, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
> Yes, we do not map individual ownership of land and buildings generally,
> but unless the owner is a person, we could and privacy regulations would
> not prevent us from doing it. It also isn’t an argument for refraining from
> mapping pr
Other tools also listed at
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/List_of_OSM-based_services#Live.2Freal-time_edits_to_OSM_data
On Wed, 16 Sep 2020 at 05:20, Michał Brzozowski wrote:
> It was called Show me the Way ( https://osmlab.github.io/show-me-the-way/
> ).
>
> Greetings
>
> Michał
>
> wt., 1
I would understand 'semi-public garden' to be, for example, a garden where you
pay an admission fee to enter, or one which is closed at night. Like Martin, I
would expect these to be completely acceptable to map.
I think the intention is to deter people from mapping _fully private_ gardens
whi
Am Mi., 16. Sept. 2020 um 10:48 Uhr schrieb Christoph Hormann via talk <
talk@openstreetmap.org>:
> * it start with "The freedom to map the world..." which implies the aim
> of OSM is "to map the world" - which it is not. OSM aims to collect
> verifiable local knowledge of the geography of the wo
On Wednesday 16 September 2020, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
> > simple: Individual humans as well as their activities and social
> > interactions between individual humans - including permanent
> > physical manifestations of those - are not as such part of the
> > verifiable geography we intend t
Note that
https://www.twobirds.com/en/in-focus/general-data-protection-regulation/gdpr-tracker/deceased-persons
seems to indicate that at least in some countries it is different
Denmark: "§ 2(5): Data Protection Act and the GDPR apply to deceased persons
until 10 years after the time of death."
Sep 16, 2020, 10:59 by talk@openstreetmap.org:
>
> I would understand 'semi-public garden' to be, for example, a garden where
> you pay an admission fee to enter, or one which is closed at night. Like
> Martin, I would expect these to be completely acceptable to map.
>
Not a native speaker, n
Yes - that's absolutely fine! Just wanted to clarify it here so that the
wording could be altered (I'm quite happy to do this myself).
Thanks,
Nick
From: Mateusz Konieczny via talk
Sent: 16 September 2020 11:01
Cc: osm
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] "Limitations on
If you (or anyone else) see way to improve it - feel free to do this.
So far (at least in my opinion) this page benefited from edits of different
people,
so far there was also no issues with people having incompatible opinions about
what is the consensus opinion.
Sep 16, 2020, 12:04 by nick.whi
"mapping the location of safe houses for victims of domestic violence"
do you think that it would be OK to change that to
"mapping the location of unsigned safe houses for victims of domestic violence"
?
I would expect that the first type would be not mappable and second would be
mappable, but I
Sep 16, 2020, 11:38 by o...@imagico.de:
> On Wednesday 16 September 2020, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
>>
>> > simple: Individual humans as well as their activities and social
>> > interactions between individual humans - including permanent
>> > physical manifestations of those - are not as s
Am Mi., 16. Sept. 2020 um 11:44 Uhr schrieb Christoph Hormann <
o...@imagico.de>:
> >
> > +0.9, I'd make it more precise: "private activities and private
> > social interactions"
>
> No, public activities of individual humans are not as such part of the
> verifiable geography either. If my neighb
Am Mi., 16. Sept. 2020 um 12:04 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny via talk <
talk@openstreetmap.org>:
> Sep 16, 2020, 10:59 by talk@openstreetmap.org:
>
> I would understand 'semi-public garden' to be, for example, a garden where
> you pay an admission fee to enter, or one which is closed at night. Li
On Wednesday 16 September 2020, Mateusz Konieczny via talk wrote:
>
> But if they manage to create a path as result of taking the same
> route repeatedly it becomes a mappable feature.
>
> I feel that "permanent physical manifestations of those" includes far
> too many things that are actually mapp
Am Mi., 16. Sept. 2020 um 13:30 Uhr schrieb Christoph Hormann <
o...@imagico.de>:
> Or in other words: Rich people cannot claim a larger scope of privacy
> just because they can own and fence in a larger area of land.
you are dreaming. Maybe they cannot rightfully claim a different treatment,
The first two bullet points are poorly worded:
building=house is "where individual people live".
"There is no need to split residential landuse into individual plots."
if that means the actual tag landuse=residential, then I'd probably
agree, but there is nothing wrong with this level of detail
22 matches
Mail list logo
