On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 5:36 AM, Janko Mihelić <jan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> What if it gave you paper money for Bitcoins? Would it be an ATM then? What > if there's a shop that only works with bitcoins? Is it a shop? > > An ATM isn't a machine that gives you paper money, the term is broader than > that. These semantic arguments are going to underly my broader point, later on in this email. > I don't get how tagging something correctly is advertising. > > I'm not that stubborn, if people are against tagging Bitcoin ATMs as > amenity=atm I'm fine with that. An alternative could be amenity=bitcoin_atm. > Maybe there should be a vote. The core issue is two part: 1. The community process for tagging is one based on the understanding of regular person. Using dictionary definitions or quoting wikipedia is exactly why this is it's getting so much pushback. If you want to make some definition for a new type of machine that is a bitcoin machine- go ahead. Here's a suggestion for one: amenity=cryptocurrency_kiosk currencies=bitcoin;litecoin And your tagging problem is solved. 2. The bitcoin community has generally been skirting the rules Bitcoin mappers have been doing everything from copying other maps outright (violating copyright), to geocoding against Google and then placing that in OSM (violating copyright) to geocoding against nominatim and then using that (really bad quality data). A while back, when I would see suspicious Bitcoin data, I would try to contact the mapper and if it it was confirmed that it was bad- delete the data. Sometimes the users told me they didn't know anything about OSM, or OSM rules about what should or should not be on the map. Other were outright rude to me about it- saying that I was part of the banking conspiracy, etc. It's my experience, and the experience of many others, that the Bitcoin community overall (not everyone, but as a group) has been really uninterested in OSM as a whole, and has been just dumping things into the database in a way that is not only bad data, but is potentially dangerous for OSM (if there are copyright violations). I have a side project (which is currently on the back burner) which is able to show which Bitcoin data is highly suspicious of this kind of either copying or geocoding. I haven't deployed it yet, but I think if/when I do, it would show a very large percentage of Bitcoin data is either of low data quality or is copied or geocoded from another source. My conclusion (without having run the data) is based on limited data I've looked at, and Bitcoin mappers I've spoken with. I would like to see Bitcoin mappers to start collecting data like the rest of us- by hand and direct observation, then I think Bitcoin proposals would be less contentious. - Serge _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
