On Sat, 10 Feb 2018 00:50:32 +0100 Tom Pfeifer <[email protected]> wrote:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Limitations_on_mapping_private_information What I miss is some generic "do not map completely private data". For example, while mapping amenity=place_of_worship in Europe is OK, I would expect it to be horrible privacy violation in places where given religion is persecuted. There are probably more cases like this and we will never cover all of them, so some generic rule would be a good idea. ====================== Maybe also mention some opposite cases? For example we map military areas, also in countries that have laws forbidding doing this. ====================== I am unsure about "do not add the names of inhabitants to dwellings". I would describe my position as: In Europe/North America, information who lives at given location is generally private and confidential. In addition it is not necessary as we have addresses that are considered public. But significant part of people across the world have no addresses[1]. These places are generally not currently mapped in OSM, so how to describe locating schemes used by their residents remains an unsolved problem. I expect that at least some of these places use names of residents instead of addresses (or use names of residents as part of location description that has function of an address). So: I worry that by assuming that "who lives here" is always private information we will cause complications for mappers of less developed areas. [1] https://github.com/google/open-location-code/wiki/Evaluation-of-Location-Encoding-Systems (note that encoding systems described here are only starting and traditional location description systems used there are at this moment used instead. Also, this type of location encoding systems has some issues described at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/What3words for one of the worst offenders) _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
