Could someone perhaps clarify why this page resides in the main namespace and not in the responsible proposer's user space?
> Do not name individuals in OpenStreetMap tags, unless their name is on a > business sign posted towards the street, or part of the business name and > available in public records. > What if the name of the operator is printed on each receipt when you shop there or a certificate is placed on the wall that shows it? We usually add that to operator=*. Indeed I think that the article confuses mapped things that are worthless and mapped things that are dangerous (according to GDPR). For example, the reason why we don't map private washing machines is that its location and capacity is not information that is in public interest (hence why it is not a POI). Another reason that it fails the verifiability criterion: if I want to check that the position and type information of the washing machine is still accurate, I need to ring the doorbell and be invited in to see for myself, but it is not realistic that an owner would invite dozens of potentially malicious random people into their house just for this. Even if the object would be visible from the outside, it is of no use to 99.9999% of individuals if the owner does not let me do my laundry there. If a TV is fully and clearly visible from the outside through the window, it _may_ serve a public utility of entertainment if you can lip read, but you need to ring the doorbell each time you want to switch channels... Private parking and driveways are acceptable because it hints at which way the entrance is - helping delivery personal and guests alike. I've mapped some very interesting hilly terrain where this can be especially useful, as roads were pretty dense and the road towards where the entrance is was not trivial and a failed guess could cost you a few more minutes of walking or driving for each house. Private swimming pools aren't that interesting but people seem to enjoy tracing them. Maybe in case of emergency they could be used as a nearby water source by the fire brigade? From the privacy section, am I reading correctly that you suggest that you find it acceptable to map each tomb in a cemetery by name? I think a lot of considerations are missing in this article other than those stemming from the GDPR, like military and national considerations. You also do not mention that there exist regions where mapping activities are forbidden by the law and punishable by prison sentence. And anyway other than describing "what is worthless to map", I think you are trying to basically gather "mapping ethics", and maybe this should be better be done in Wikipedia because it does not only concern OpenStreetMap, but any mapping provider. On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 3:15 PM Niels Elgaard Larsen <elga...@agol.dk> wrote: > > Mateusz Konieczny via talk: > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Limitations_on_mapping_private_information > > > > Do you think that this page is a good description of community consensus? > > > > The page has > > "This page is under development (May 2020). It may not yet reflect > > community consensus." > > and I would like to check whatever it matches community consensus well or > > mismatches it. > > > > I think we should avoid language such as "There is no need to split > residential > landuse into individual plots". > > Of course there is a need for someone somewhere to tag just about everything. > For example, if you want to buy a house you would want to see where the plot > is. > > This is not about needs, but about privacy, and maybe data quality. > > > -- > Niels Elgaard Larsen > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
