> And i think there are a lot of other areas in OSM that represent at least as > efficient (and therefore damaging) means of cultural imperialism as remote > mapping.
Acting as devil's advocate, I have a quick question - are you 100% sure that you are not overthinking stuff? I see discussion after discussion which delve into grand topics like diversity, freedom from proprietary software/services, freedom from corporations, now this thing with remote mappers robbing local people of something deep and profound... Don't you think you're over-analyzing everything a bit too much recently? I mean, wouldn't the energy be better spent? Just checking. I may be wrong, in which case, please do carry on... Paweł On Sat, Jun 13, 2015, at 19:09, Christoph Hormann wrote: > On Saturday 13 June 2015, Frederik Ramm wrote: > > [...] > > > > I don't agree with everything written in these postings but they > > certainly deserve some wider audience, and that's why I am writing > > this here - since neither author is on these lists and I haven't seen > > their messages mentioned or quoted anywhere. > > > > I think the tl;dr of both these postings could be: "Whenever you give > > someone a map by remote mapping, you also take something away from > > them." > > Thanks for pointing to these texts, very interesting reading. > > I fear though that critical discussion of the matter will most likely be > difficult since the perceived need for humanitarian mapping in events > of crisis and the perceived prominence of altruistic motives in those > activities is so large making even the basic notion that something good > does not justify something bad seems unimportant. Critical reflection > on your activities in such a context is very difficult. > > One important point where i think Gwilym is wrong is the idea that > proactive humanitarian mapping will lead to a true homogenization of > the map. First of all none of the organized mapping activities > focusses on those areas that are worst mapped in OSM so they increase > differences rather than reducing them. Efforts in true homogenization > would only have a chance on a much longer time horizon (i.e. decades) > and none of the organizations involved in humanitarian mapping think on > that time scale. > > But more importantly the colonalization, control and "power over space" > is already there in the form of global coverage high resolution > imagery. Remote mapping essentailly makes this information more > accessible. If this is a good or a bad thing can of course be > discussed but OSM is not really the best address to blame here in any > case. > > This is not meant to say remote mapping in OSM is generally a good > thing, many of the arguments against it have a lot of merit. But the > main question should be if and how this hampers development of true > grassroots mapping by locals when performed within OSM and thereby > conteracts the primary purpose of the project and not if remote mapping > itself, i.e. extracting semantic information from remotely sensed data > that exists anyway is morally questionable in general (which is fairly > frivolous IMO). > > And i think there are a lot of other areas in OSM that represent at > least as efficient (and therefore damaging) means of cultural > imperialism as remote mapping. My favorite example is always map > rendering, there is a real lot of more or less subtle cultural bias in > that. OSM does not only need more mappers with diverse cultural > backgrounds, it also need more diverse input in development and design > and the barriers for those are much higher than for mapping. > > -- > Christoph Hormann > http://www.imagico.de/ > > _______________________________________________ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
