On Sun, Aug 30, 2020 at 6:53 PM Brian Stromberg <[email protected]> wrote:
> I would argue that maps can only show the world as the mapmaker wants it > to be shown... > In OSM we should map facts, what is observable on the ground (with the exception of personal information, and perhaps culturally sensitive sites whose location has not otherwise been published ). Like Stevea alluded to, what the data user does with the information is up to them. Otherwise, we descend into only relying on opinion as to what facts are "dangerous" or what facts could "encourage dangerous or bad behavior." Also, some facts are embarrassing to individuals or organizations because those facts might show they are not doing their job. Of course, they will not come out and say, please don't publish these facts because it is an embarrassment to us, they will find some way to say "the facts are dangerous" or "while the facts portray a bad situation, publishing those facts will only make the situation worse." In this case, our obligation is to clearly indicate that access=no or access=private (in other words, not open to the general public). We can debate whether this should be tagged tourism=viewpoint, but the debate should be around whether the object fits our definition, not whether it may or may not encourage "bad" behavior. For all we know, historic=ruins might actually encourage more bad behavior than tourism=viewpoint. I am not saying it will, I am saying we don't have any evidence one way or the other. Mike
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
