On Wed, 16 Sep 2020 at 14:47, bkil <bkil.hu...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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? >
Depending on the terrain, they may be visible and serve as navigational references. "If I'm where I think I am, there should be a house with a swimming pool in that direction." Also, swimming pools are not people and have no right to privacy under the GDPR. Also, aerial imagery exists. People can look at such imagery in Google Maps, Bing Maps, etc. If you don't want people knowing you have a swimming pool then build a cover over it or bribe all the aerial imagery companies to doctor their images so your swimming pool isn't visible. > > 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've mapped a few tombs by name. They're large, elaborate, and (most importantly) are "listed buildings" meaning they are of cultural significance and protected by law. I wouldn't bother mapping any other tombs in a cemetery, not unless I ran out of things to map (that isn't going to happen). 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. > And what if OSM feels those generic mapping ethics are too lax? We'll end up with our own, one way or another. Even if it's only guidance as to how to interpret generic ethics in the context of the OSM mapping model. -- Paul
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
