On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 7:38 PM, Jo <[email protected]> wrote: > On the one hand I wouldn't bother tagging them, but for the ones that you > did tag, I think you should go back and tag them private. The tennis courts > too.
Agreed --- I'll do that (although fairly gradually). > Every time I see solar panels shining on Bing, my fingers itch to tag them > as power plants, but I don't think it makes a lot of sense to do so... It's > borderline privacy transgression, isn't it? Again, agreed. I wasn't sure whether to tag pools at first, but they're even more obvious than houses (on Bing etc) and if we count it as privacy transgression, perhaps we should count the exact size and shape of a house as a similar transgression, and simply map all houses as single points (so that likely affluence can't be inferred from the house size, as well as it not being inferred from presence or absence of swimming pool or tennis court in the garden). Also, if eventually such features are mapped consistently all over the place (country / world) it could be useful for those calculating social statistics (human geography) which I see as a use for OSM-as-database (e.g. quality-of-life by county, etc). I just hope such data doesn't get used for directed marketing; but if it does, the marketing industry is probably going to come up with the data anyway before long (I don't think it would be difficult for a swimming pool accessories company to get software written for spotting swimming pools on Bing / Google Maps, correlating it with address data (perhaps by outsourcing to a country with cheap labour -- or perhaps the pool-spotting could be done that way anyway), and mailshot all pool owners) so not mapping such features isn't really going to protect privacy that much. __John _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
