<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Sep 16, 2020, 11:38 by osm@imagico.de:<br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div>On Wednesday 16 September 2020, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:<br></div><blockquote><div><br></div><div>> simple: Individual humans as well as their activities and social<br></div><div>> interactions between individual humans - including permanent<br></div><div>> physical manifestations of those - are not as such part of the<br></div><div>> verifiable geography we intend to record.<br></div><div><br></div><div>+0.9, I'd make it more precise: "private activities and private<br></div><div>social interactions"<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>No, public activities of individual humans are not as such part of the <br></div><div>verifiable geography either. If my neighbor takes their dog for a walk <br></div><div>on a certain route every day that is a public activity - yet does not <br></div><div>belong in OSM.<br></div></blockquote><div>But if they manage to create a path as result of taking the same route repeatedly<br></div><div>it becomes a mappable feature.<br></div><div><br></div><div>I feel that "permanent physical manifestations of those" includes far too many<br></div><div>things that are actually mappable.<br></div><div><br></div><div>What about buildings? Many of them are also "physical manifestations of those"<br></div><div>and not visible from public land. I would still consider them as mappable<br></div><div>and verifiable - we can do this using aerial images and so on.<br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><blockquote><div>> The private swimming pool and the private driveway become part of<br></div><div>> the verifiable geography because members of society on a larger<br></div><div>> scale (i.e. not just the personal social environment of the owner)<br></div><div>> interact with them on a routine basis.<br></div><div><br></div><div>I'd question this. Noone has to show their private swimming pool or<br></div><div>driveway to anybody, clearly not on a "larger scale". (I am still for<br></div><div>mapping private swimming pools, and driveways, as long as we do not<br></div><div>associate an individual with it, it has nothing to do with privacy.)<br></div><div><br></div><div>> In those cases mostly visually - but that can<br></div><div>> be sufficient.<br></div><div><br></div><div>mostly you can't see private swimming pools from the street, and<br></div><div>according to the area, you also might not be able to see the<br></div><div>driveway.<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>We might have different ideas of what a driveway is but a private <br></div><div>driveway as i imagine it is part of the verifiable geography among <br></div><div>other things because you have to take notice of cars coming out of <br></div><div>private driveways as you drive along a public road. In other words: <br></div><div>The driveway becomes part of the verifiable geography by being used as <br></div><div>a driveway.<br></div><div><br></div><div>For swimming pools that is certainly a matter of size - large swimming <br></div><div>pools are however major constructions and major users of water supplies <br></div><div>as well as reservoirs of water - to be used for example by firefighters <br></div><div>in an emergency. That is where i would see the interaction on a larger <br></div><div>scale.<br></div></blockquote><div>I would say that if someone has a private island it is still perfectly fine<br></div><div>to map buildings, driveways*, garden areas there - even if sole source<br></div><div>of map data is an aerial image.<br></div><div><br></div><div>*leading from private palace to a private dock, not connected to<br></div><div>any public road.<br></div> </body>
</html>