I agree. On Mon, 1 Apr 2019 at 10:59, Ewen Hill <[email protected]> wrote:
> This should be documented clearly. Whilst there is a lot of well known art > work, there are a significant number of sacred areas that should not be > mapped or identified due to the cultural significance. We only need one > person transgressing due to OSM to cause offence. I have just worked with > the local owners during an emergency and it is amazing the amount of > artifacts that were identified that could disappear if mapped accurately by > trophy hunters. > > Ewen > > On Mon, 1 Apr 2019 at 10:38, Graeme Fitzpatrick <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> >> >> On Mon, 1 Apr 2019 at 08:51, Gavin Scott <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> The issue about the sacred-ness -it is not the job of OSM to make this >>> call. If you think an item is too private to map (perhaps such as a farmers >>> internal road network) then don't map it. Tthis is the mappers call. >>> >> >> There has been discussion here previously about mapping ceremonial >> trails, & the consensus was that it should only be done with the agreement >> & approval of the local Elders, so the same principle should apply to these >> sites. >> >> Should that be documented as OSM (maybe AU?) policy, or left to the >> discretion of individual mappers? >> >> Thanks >> >> Graeme >> _______________________________________________ >> Talk-au mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au >> > > > -- > Warm Regards > > Ewen Hill > Internet Development Australia > _______________________________________________ > Talk-au mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au >
_______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
