<div dir="auto">Hello,<br>
<br>
TL;DR: I disagree with the proposal, OSM would fall apart without OTGR.<br>
<br>
As for "we should change the world by creating the map", this is THE <br>
antithesis to OpenStreetMap. As soon we depart from the On-The-Ground <br>
Rule, and start mapping "what _I_think_ ought (not) exist", we become <br>
OpenGeoFiction2 and perish in edit wars: opinion is unfalsifiable and <br>
unverifiable, as opposed to physical features.<br>
<br>
"Do not be angry at the mirror if you dislike what you see there", so to <br>
speak. Fix the world and _then_ edit its map to reflect the new status, <br>
sure; but breaking the mirror is the opposite of fixing, even if you <br>
start doing it in tiny pieces and For the Greater Good. (I am aware that <br>
the metaphor leaks - what gets mapped and what gets displayed can never <br>
be a perfect mirror, bias will always be there - but the proposal seems <br>
to suggest that we dispose of OTGR altogether.) As you note, there is no <br>
clear consensus even on such things as boundaries.<br>
<br>
Speaking of HOTOSM, that's a great counterexample, actually: many things <br>
mapped in HOT are unlikable: slums, refugee camps, disaster outcomes. <br>
Should we undisplay and suppress those, too, to make the map _seem_ nicer?<br>
<br>
See also this official OSMF statement on disputed features; I think it's <br>
applicable to most disputed elements:<br>
<a href="https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/w/images/d/d8/DisputedTerritoriesInformation.pdf" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/w/images/d/d8/DisputedTerritoriesInformation.pdf</a><br>
(If I may summarize: existence in map is not endorsement, physical <br>
reality trumps wishes.)<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
Jan "Piskvor" Martinec<br>
<br>
<br>
Dne 06/29/18 v 17:50 James napsal(a):<br>
> Not showing things on map to me is a form of censorship. I.E if a study<br>
> finds that the sight of trees triggers suicide by hanging do we start<br>
> removing all tree icons?<br>
><br>
> This sets a precedent to what can and can't be displayed on map. There<br>
> are some disputed boarders that are displayed differently in Google maps<br>
> depending on where you view it<br>
> from( <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9ZMub2UrKU" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9ZMub2UrKU</a> ) and the reasons are<br>
> mostly political. The map should show "what is there" is my philosophy<br>
><br>
> On Fri, Jun 29, 2018, 11:30 AM Carlos Cámara, <<a href="mailto:carlos.camara@gmail.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">carlos.camara@gmail.com</a><br>
> <mailto:<a href="mailto:carlos.camara@gmail.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">carlos.camara@gmail.com</a>>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> Dear all,<br>
><br>
> After participating in this openstreetmap-carto issue<br>
> <<a href="https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/3210" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/3210</a>><br>
> discussing to create an icon for casinos in which I stated that they<br>
> should not be highlighted with an icon due to their grave<br>
> consequences derived from gambling addiction (there are plenty of<br>
> scientific literature about it), I was pointed out that OSM does not<br>
> take "any ethical stance and display the world as it is."<br>
><br>
> It is for that reason that I want to raise that particular topic to<br>
> OSM community:<br>
> Is that true? and if so, should it be that way?<br>
><br>
> Long story short: although I am aware that it is a sensible and<br>
> polemic issue, I think that such position does not make much sense<br>
> in a project like OSM as I believe that OSM has a great social<br>
> responsibility and opportunity as well. It is for that reason that<br>
> we could be much more aware and sensitive to those matters and act<br>
> accordingly.<br>
><br>
> My reasons for such statement are the following ones:<br>
><br>
> First: Any map is also a political act in terms that the mappers<br>
> decide which information is displayed and which one is not, but also<br>
> in the way we represent countries in terms of size and position<br>
> (spoiler alert: countries are not like we represent them on the<br>
> maps, and definitely are far different from the common web-mercator<br>
> projection -more about that on this Wikipedia article<br>
> <<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map_projection" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map_projection</a>> or, if even inthis<br>
> chapter of West Wing TV series<br>
> <<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVX-PrBRtTY" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVX-PrBRtTY</a>>). This is to say that<br>
> it is impossible to represent reality as it is due to the fact that<br>
> it is impossible to project the Earth onto a flat surface without<br>
> errors/distortions. OSM is no exception to that and, as such, it<br>
> has a cultural and techno-political perspective/bias even if we are<br>
> not aware of that. We should not forget about that (and leads us to<br>
> the following point).<br>
><br>
> Second: The very foundations of OSM as a project are<br>
> techno-political in terms that it was created to overcome the lack<br>
> of certain geographical information about certain areas or topics.<br>
> This is even more obvious in HOSM or the not-at-all-accidental use<br>
> of open licenses from its very beginning.<br>
><br>
> Third: by creating the map the way we love, we are also creating the<br>
> world as we would love to live in. Since most of OSM contributors<br>
> decide to share their free time with other mappers around the world<br>
> in making the best possible map, we could infer (yes, I acknowledge<br>
> certain bias here which would require much more research) that we<br>
> would love to live in a world where sharing was considered as a<br>
> positive value and change-driver for a better world which also<br>
> promoted other positive values such as openness to information,<br>
> collaboration, inclusiveness, communication and discussion (which,<br>
> surprise, are OSM's pillars). Following that reasoning, I believe<br>
> that OSM should set the grounds for a world aligned with their<br>
> values by acting accordingly. It is doing so anyway, so why not to<br>
> take some time to reflect on that instead of avoiding discussion<br>
> based on the illusion that we are not taking part in this?<br>
><br>
> Fourth: OSM has a complexity that makes it difficult for newcomers<br>
> to wholly understand it (let alone to get involved). Part of these<br>
> difficulties lie in the fact that OSM is, in fact, a complex<br>
> ecosystem formed by a spatial database, a community, a map (or<br>
> better, a series of maps), 3rd party apps... that cannot be<br>
> appreciated at first sight, since many newcomers' first contact with<br>
> OSM is the <a href="http://openstreetmap.org" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">openstreetmap.org</a> <<a href="http://openstreetmap.org" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">http://openstreetmap.org</a>> which, in<br>
> fact, is even more complex than that as it is in turn based in<br>
> several components such as nominatim, javascript libraries or<br>
> renders such as carto, transport, HOSM... What most of these people<br>
> see there (and what they are likely looking for) is a map "similar<br>
> to Google maps" yet different. This is to say that<br>
> openstreetmap-carto is OSM's business card, which should serve as an<br>
> entry point to the project to people from many conditions and hence,<br>
> we have a responsibility in deciding what do we display and how we<br>
> do it (I'm sure we are all more or less aware of that and there are<br>
> great efforts and success in making it a great default renderer -I<br>
> honestly love how fast it has improved in recent time).<br>
><br>
> Unfortunately, even if someone completely agreed with all those<br>
> points, I have to acknowledge that there is not a single and<br>
> non-controversial position that can be taken from them. Even if we<br>
> agreed with the fact that we have a social responsibility, several<br>
> questions arise: Which are those polemic features that we are<br>
> talking about? and, what should we do with them?<br>
><br>
> Let's start with the latter:<br>
><br>
> IMHO there are several options for dealing with polemic features,<br>
> like the following ones:<br>
><br>
> 1. Not display them at all on openstreetmap-carto (and possibly,<br>
> creating a specific renderer for that purpose)<br>
> 2. Display them on openstreetmap-carto, but discretely, without<br>
> highlighting them (eg: by only displaying its name, without an<br>
> icon or with a generic one)<br>
> 3. Keep openstreetmap-carto as it is and as it is currently<br>
> evolving and simply add a new "sensitive renderer" without that<br>
> sensitive information and possibly highlighting other ones (I<br>
> know that this is not a good name as it has ethical<br>
> connotations/judgements, but I can't think of a better name and<br>
> I think it serves to clearly explain what I wanted to say). We<br>
> could discuss whether it is to be used as a default renderer or not.<br>
> 4. ...<br>
> 5. Please note that I am not arguing for their removal from the<br>
> database, as I acknowledge that those features can be useful<br>
> even for detractors (eg: downloading that data with overpass to<br>
> make a study comparing them with other sources of information)<br>
><br>
> But again, where are the limits of those polemic features? how we<br>
> define what should be included and what not?<br>
><br>
> 1. Considering a feature as hazardous activities may not seem good<br>
> criteria since there are many activities with negative<br>
> consequences for the humans that are mapped and currently<br>
> displayed like tobacco shops, alcohol shops, whereas others<br>
> (like casinos or gambling) are not displayed with the same<br>
> importance.<br>
> 2. Legally accepted activities are also controversial, because some<br>
> features may be legal in one country whereas forbidden in many<br>
> others (eg: coffee shops, brothels, guns' shops, alcohol...)<br>
> 3. Considering something as of "public interest" is also<br>
> problematic: Even socially accepted features for some groups may<br>
> be reprovable for others (such as butchers, shops that sell meat<br>
> or bullfighting rings to name a few).<br>
><br>
> In order to overcome those matters (and if I am not wrong), so far<br>
> the position on this regards is to render everything on<br>
> openstreetmap-carto provided the following conditions: A) there is a<br>
> significant number of uses (don't know how much is "significant"),<br>
> B) someone creates an issue requesting for it, C) someone designs an<br>
> icon or a representation for it, D) someone implements it by<br>
> creating a Pull request that is merged into openstreetmap-carto project.<br>
><br>
> It seems a sensible approach as it tries to be both as objective as<br>
> possible and pragmatic but is not free from polemics: behind the<br>
> appearance of not taking part on the political debate, the truth is<br>
> that the resulting map has a strong Eurocentric and<br>
> heteropatriarchal perspective which may not take into account<br>
> diversity either in the world nor in OSM's community (which does not<br>
> have to do with figures about representativity). Or in other words,<br>
> it is like European white heterosexual males were doing a kind of<br>
> digital colonization of the world by imposing their rules simply<br>
> because other groups are not participating in the decision-making<br>
> process and hence their needs/opinions have not been taken into account.<br>
><br>
> Unfortunately, again I don't have solutions for that, and that's why<br>
> I wanted to raise the debate on what I consider to be an important<br>
> matter for OSM's project and an opportunity to make it even better.<br>
><br>
> Willing to read your points of view on that matter.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> Carlos Cámara<br>
> <a href="http://carloscamara.es" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">http://carloscamara.es</a><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> talk mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:talk@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">talk@openstreetmap.org</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:talk@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">talk@openstreetmap.org</a>><br>
> <a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk</a><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> talk mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:talk@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">talk@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
> <a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk</a><br>
><br>
<br></div>