Because the very notion that it is relevant to study OSM by gender is
divisive.
Who cares what the gender balance of contributors to OSM is? I don't. I
didn't even know what the split was until this thread. Because it
literally doesn't matter.
Even it were 99% women, it wouldn't matter. So long as everyone has a
chance to contribute if they want to.
Some people are saying about how awful it is to have a gender bias in
the mapped data. If it were 99% women, I would imagine there might be
better detail about the women's toilets. In that case, I would add data
about the men's. No one owes me an apology, or a commitment to change
their mapping habits. The solution starts with me - "Be the change you
want to see."
It's simple - whatever gender, race, social group you are, come and use
OSM. If some data you care about is missing, get mapping!
Joel
On 05/09/17 12:14, Charlotte Wolter wrote:
My goodness, all this anxiety! Why are you feeling that
you have to justify what you map, just because someone is
studying it by gender?
Charlotte
At 10:10 AM 9/5/2017, you wrote:
On Tue, 5 Sep 2017 08:25:33 +0200 Marc Gemis <[email protected]>
wrote: > One of the discussion points on her diary entry was female
hygiene > products found in women's toilets. How is a man going to map
that, > without access to women's toilets ? > > The real question for
me is are men more likely going to map shop=car > than
shop=clothes;clothes=underwear/fashion/ ... (sorry for the >
stereotyping) > will men map leisure=playground or amenity=pub ? >
will a roman catholic map a mosque ? > will a non-dog owner map
leisure=dog_park ? > > in short: will we map everything we see or do
we map only our > interests ? Furthermore, do we really see everything
or do we only see > (and map) things we are conditioned to ? > > This
is not about buildings, addresses, roads and paths. They are
> pretty gender neutral I think. It's about POIs.
I know I map what I see (or more precisely, what my camera
captures). If it doesn't have a sign out front, I don't map it.
To take an example from the midwives vs. strip clubs debate,
the phone book lists seven midwives and/or midwife groups
in the Spokane area. Of those, three are attached to hospitals
and one to a community-health clinic, and so wouldn't have
signs. Two are operating out of private homes and don't have
signs (and I wouldn't map them if they did, just like I don't map
lawn care or computer repair businesses operating out of
private homes).
The last one is in the 95% of the city I haven't yet photo-mapped.
The phone book lists zero strip clubs in the Spokane area.
Despite that, I've found and mapped one strip club: it was on a
major street and had a clear sign out front.
Yes, there's a bias in my mapping, but it's a bias towards
"things identifiable from the street." I'm more likely to map a car
store than a clothes store, because car stores are generally
not found inside shopping malls. Playgrounds beat pubs,
because every playground is visible from the street. And this
non-dog-owner didn't map the dog park, because it was
already mapped by the time I got started.
-- Mark
_______________________________________________
Talk-us mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Charlotte Wolter
927 18th Street Suite A
Santa Monica, California
90403
+1-310-597-4040
[email protected]
Skype: thetechlady
_______________________________________________
Talk-us mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
_______________________________________________
Talk-us mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
