On January 8, 2018 11:39:51 PM GMT+00:00, Kevin Kenny
<kevin.b.kenny+...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 6:31 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
><dieterdre...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>> are we encouraging / supporting / recommending something because we
>map
>> it?
>>
>
>Some seem to think so. Witness municipalities asking us to remove their
>streets
>from the map, public land managers asking us not to map certain trails,
>and
>so
>on. Apparently, admitting that something exists may be implicitly
>condoning
>it.
Don't confuse mapping the physical features with mapping the activities
officially allowed and/or actually taking place.
highway=service ? Must-have.
access=no ? Important.
lit=no ? Useful.
amenity=black_market ? No way.
I've done lots of urbex over the years. It's quite popular in France. But it's
illegal pretty much by definition; you don't call it urbex if you're allowed to
visit. Even if urbex was legal (and therefore mappable), a site's
urbex-worthynes is so subjective and personal that it'd be impossible to map
meaningfuly. I suggest deleting any urbex tag you encounter.
--
Vdp
Sent from a phone.
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
