23 Oct 2020, 11:59 by [email protected]:
> A licence condition for data users is that they have a public policy for the
> Don'tRender tag
> 'That is fortunately impossible' why is it impossible?
>
Technically it is possible but it would require licensechange that would be
problematic
both from legal viewpoint (making such rule effective
would be tricky at best)and unlikely to be accepted by osm community.
It is not impossible as in "can be established
with math proof to be illogically and therefore impossible"
but impossible as in "I will stop conflict in
Middle East by posting on Twitter'.
>
> 'Note that deleting existing paths with "I do not want them rendered" is not
> an acceptable edit'
> I don't think anybody suggested it was.
>
This "solution" regularly appears in such
topics about illegal or unwanted paths.
> 'Russia does not get to decide whatever their military bases can be mapped
> and rendered in OSM.'
> Nobody said that Russia should should be able to
>
It was just proposed that owners or operator
of an area would be able to suppress
rendering of objects there.
>
> Its a point for discussion. What do you think should happen?
>
Paths existing but illegal to use should
be marked and tagged with access tags.
Path destroyed should be deleted from OSM.
Paths but existing should not be mapped in OSM.
> Why single out Russia?
>
AFAIK they have laws forbidding mapping
locations of military bases.
>
> PS thanks Steve for your second email.
> thanks Phil for your clarification on 'illegal'
>
> Tony
>
>>
>>
>>
>> Oct 23, 2020, 10:18 by [email protected]:
>>
>>> I am not morally responsible if an ex partner kills a woman in a women's
>>> refuge, he is, but I won't knowingly contribute to the process. And it
>>> doesn't wash with me to say they should put a guard at the door because I
>>> have mapped a refuge.
>>>
>> Not mapping ones that are private and not signed falls under not mapping
>> private info.
>>
>> See
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Limitations_on_mapping_private_information
>> for an attempt to gather consensus opinion.
>>
>>> Re access=no, if I recollect correctly they still display in OSM, only
>>> slightly more red.
>>>
>> This changed, now they display greish (less prominent)
>>
>>>
>>> You probably wouldn't notice. I haven't checked data users such as Osmand
>>> and Strava.
>>>
>> Any decent router will not route over them.
>>
>>> Graeme
>>> Thanks for your thoughts on 'how to'. I have given it some thought and
>>> don't have any really good answers. Please think of a better scheme.
>>>
>>> I mentioned a Don'tRender=yes tag but worry it may be too complicated for
>>> the benefit that results but here goes:
>>>
>>> a land owner or manager can add a Don'tRender=yes tag
>>> OSM.org map would honour the tag in map mode
>>>
>> This is a bad idea.
>>
>>> A licence condition for data users is that they have a public policy for
>>> the Don'tRender tag
>>>
>> That is fortunately impossible.
>>
>>>
>>> By having the item visible at edit time it eliminates the cycle of
>>> addition and deletion and edit wars.
>>>
>> You can do that by mapping line and tagging it with note.
>>
>> Note that deleting existing paths with "I do not want them rendered" is not
>> an acceptable edit.
>>
>>> Let the mapping community decide whether the claim to be a land owner or
>>> manager is credible, if two organisations have credible claim to that then
>>> Don'tRender=disputed
>>>
>> Russia does not get to decide whatever their military bases can be mapped
>> and rendered in OSM.
>>
>> I knowingly and deliberately violated
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restrictions_on_geographic_data_in_China
>> by mapping objects in China.
>>
>> _____________________________________________________
>> This mail has been virus scanned by Australia On Line
>> see http://www.australiaonline.net.au/mailscanning
>>
_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
