Re: [OSM-talk] "Limitations on mapping private information" - wiki page

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

Re: [OSM-talk] "Limitations on mapping private information" - wiki page

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,

Re: [OSM-talk] "Limitations on mapping private information" - wiki page

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

Re: [OSM-talk] "Limitations on mapping private information" - wiki page

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.

Re: [OSM-talk] "Limitations on mapping private information" - wiki page

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

Re: [OSM-talk] "Limitations on mapping private information" - wiki page

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

Re: [OSM-talk] "Limitations on mapping private information" - wiki page

"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

Re: [OSM-talk] "Limitations on mapping private information" - wiki page

eptember 2020 11:01 > > Cc:> osm > > Subject:> Re: [OSM-talk] "Limitations on mapping private information" - > wiki page> >   > > > > Sep 16, 2020, 10:59 by talk@openstreetmap.org: > >> >> I would understand 'semi-public garden'

Re: [OSM-talk] "Limitations on mapping private information" - wiki page

ons. Nick From: Martin Koppenhoefer Sent: 16 September 2020 08:51 To: Mateusz Konieczny Cc: OSM Talk Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] "Limitations on mapping private information" - wiki page sent from a phone On 16. Sep 2020, at 09:41, Mateusz Konieczny via talk wrote: Do you think that

Re: [OSM-talk] "Limitations on mapping private information" - wiki page

From:> Martin Koppenhoefer > > Sent:> 16 September 2020 08:51 > > To:> Mateusz Konieczny > > Cc:> OSM Talk > > Subject:> Re: [OSM-talk] "Limitations on mapping private information" - > wiki page> >   > > > se

Re: [OSM-talk] "Limitations on mapping private information" - wiki page

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."

Re: [OSM-talk] "Limitations on mapping private information" - wiki page

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

Re: [OSM-talk] "Limitations on mapping private information" - wiki page

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

Re: [OSM-talk] "Limitations on mapping private information" - wiki page

which can be viewed from public roads, is this correct? Nick From: Martin Koppenhoefer Sent: 16 September 2020 08:51 To: Mateusz Konieczny Cc: OSM Talk Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] "Limitations on mapping private information" - wiki page sent from a ph

Re: [OSM-talk] "Limitations on mapping private information" - wiki page

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

Re: [OSM-talk] "Limitations on mapping private information" - wiki page

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

Re: [OSM-talk] "Limitations on mapping private information" - wiki page

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

Re: [OSM-talk] "Limitations on mapping private information" - wiki page

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

Re: [OSM-talk] "Limitations on mapping private information" - wiki page

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Limitations on mapping private information

On 15-Feb-18 12:29 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2018-02-14 14:10 GMT+01:00 Mateusz Konieczny >: On Sat, 10 Feb 2018 00:50:32 +0100 Tom Pfeifer > wrote: >

Re: [OSM-talk] Limitations on mapping private information

2018-02-14 14:10 GMT+01:00 Mateusz Konieczny : > On Sat, 10 Feb 2018 00:50:32 +0100 > Tom Pfeifer wrote: > > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Limitations_on_ > mapping_private_information > > What I miss is some generic "do not map completely

Re: [OSM-talk] Limitations on mapping private information

On Sat, 10 Feb 2018 00:50:32 +0100 Tom Pfeifer wrote: > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Limitations_on_mapping_private_information What I miss is some generic "do not map completely private data". For example, while mapping amenity=place_of_worship in Europe is OK,