Do keep in mind that none of the maintainers opposed (as far as I can see). The comments are essentially from random people who may or may not be closely involved in the project.
Michał pt., 29 cze 2018, 17:30 użytkownik Carlos Cámara <carlos.cam...@gmail.com> napisał: > Dear all, > > After participating in this openstreetmap-carto issue > <https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/3210> > discussing to create an icon for casinos in which I stated that they should > not be highlighted with an icon due to their grave consequences derived > from gambling addiction (there are plenty of scientific literature about > it), I was pointed out that OSM does not take "any ethical stance and > display the world as it is." > > It is for that reason that I want to raise that particular topic to OSM > community: > Is that true? and if so, should it be that way? > > Long story short: although I am aware that it is a sensible and polemic > issue, I think that such position does not make much sense in a project > like OSM as I believe that OSM has a great social responsibility and > opportunity as well. It is for that reason that we could be much more aware > and sensitive to those matters and act accordingly. > > My reasons for such statement are the following ones: > > First: Any map is also a political act in terms that the mappers decide > which information is displayed and which one is not, but also in the way we > represent countries in terms of size and position (spoiler alert: countries > are not like we represent them on the maps, and definitely are far > different from the common web-mercator projection -more about that on this > Wikipedia article <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map_projection> or, if > even in this chapter of West Wing TV series > <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVX-PrBRtTY>). This is to say that it is > impossible to represent reality as it is due to the fact that it is > impossible to project the Earth onto a flat surface without > errors/distortions. OSM is no exception to that and, as such, it has a > cultural and techno-political perspective/bias even if we are not aware of > that. We should not forget about that (and leads us to the following point). > > Second: The very foundations of OSM as a project are techno-political in > terms that it was created to overcome the lack of certain geographical > information about certain areas or topics. This is even more obvious in > HOSM or the not-at-all-accidental use of open licenses from its very > beginning. > > Third: by creating the map the way we love, we are also creating the world > as we would love to live in. Since most of OSM contributors decide to share > their free time with other mappers around the world in making the best > possible map, we could infer (yes, I acknowledge certain bias here which > would require much more research) that we would love to live in a world > where sharing was considered as a positive value and change-driver for a > better world which also promoted other positive values such as openness to > information, collaboration, inclusiveness, communication and discussion > (which, surprise, are OSM's pillars). Following that reasoning, I believe > that OSM should set the grounds for a world aligned with their values by > acting accordingly. It is doing so anyway, so why not to take some time to > reflect on that instead of avoiding discussion based on the illusion that > we are not taking part in this? > > Fourth: OSM has a complexity that makes it difficult for newcomers to > wholly understand it (let alone to get involved). Part of these > difficulties lie in the fact that OSM is, in fact, a complex ecosystem > formed by a spatial database, a community, a map (or better, a series of > maps), 3rd party apps... that cannot be appreciated at first sight, since > many newcomers' first contact with OSM is the openstreetmap.org which, in > fact, is even more complex than that as it is in turn based in several > components such as nominatim, javascript libraries or renders such as > carto, transport, HOSM... What most of these people see there (and what > they are likely looking for) is a map "similar to Google maps" yet > different. This is to say that openstreetmap-carto is OSM's business card, > which should serve as an entry point to the project to people from many > conditions and hence, we have a responsibility in deciding what do we > display and how we do it (I'm sure we are all more or less aware of that > and there are great efforts and success in making it a great default > renderer -I honestly love how fast it has improved in recent time). > > Unfortunately, even if someone completely agreed with all those points, I > have to acknowledge that there is not a single and non-controversial > position that can be taken from them. Even if we agreed with the fact that > we have a social responsibility, several questions arise: Which are those > polemic features that we are talking about? and, what should we do with > them? > > Let's start with the latter: > > IMHO there are several options for dealing with polemic features, like the > following ones: > > 1. Not display them at all on openstreetmap-carto (and possibly, > creating a specific renderer for that purpose) > 2. Display them on openstreetmap-carto, but discretely, without > highlighting them (eg: by only displaying its name, without an icon or with > a generic one) > 3. Keep openstreetmap-carto as it is and as it is currently evolving > and simply add a new "sensitive renderer" without that sensitive > information and possibly highlighting other ones (I know that this is not a > good name as it has ethical connotations/judgements, but I can't think of a > better name and I think it serves to clearly explain what I wanted to say). > We could discuss whether it is to be used as a default renderer or not. > 4. ... > 5. Please note that I am not arguing for their removal from the > database, as I acknowledge that those features can be useful even for > detractors (eg: downloading that data with overpass to make a study > comparing them with other sources of information) > > But again, where are the limits of those polemic features? how we define > what should be included and what not? > > 1. Considering a feature as hazardous activities may not seem good > criteria since there are many activities with negative consequences for the > humans that are mapped and currently displayed like tobacco shops, alcohol > shops, whereas others (like casinos or gambling) are not displayed with the > same importance. > 2. Legally accepted activities are also controversial, because some > features may be legal in one country whereas forbidden in many others (eg: > coffee shops, brothels, guns' shops, alcohol...) > 3. Considering something as of "public interest" is also problematic: > Even socially accepted features for some groups may be reprovable for > others (such as butchers, shops that sell meat or bullfighting rings to > name a few). > > In order to overcome those matters (and if I am not wrong), so far the > position on this regards is to render everything on openstreetmap-carto > provided the following conditions: A) there is a significant number of uses > (don't know how much is "significant"), B) someone creates an issue > requesting for it, C) someone designs an icon or a representation for it, > D) someone implements it by creating a Pull request that is merged into > openstreetmap-carto project. > > It seems a sensible approach as it tries to be both as objective as > possible and pragmatic but is not free from polemics: behind the appearance > of not taking part on the political debate, the truth is that the resulting > map has a strong Eurocentric and heteropatriarchal perspective which may > not take into account diversity either in the world nor in OSM's community > (which does not have to do with figures about representativity). Or in > other words, it is like European white heterosexual males were doing a kind > of digital colonization of the world by imposing their rules simply because > other groups are not participating in the decision-making process and hence > their needs/opinions have not been taken into account. > > Unfortunately, again I don't have solutions for that, and that's why I > wanted to raise the debate on what I consider to be an important matter for > OSM's project and an opportunity to make it even better. > > Willing to read your points of view on that matter. > > > > Carlos Cámara > http://carloscamara.es > _______________________________________________ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk >
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk