[Tagging] areas of risk

[seirra]

hmmm i do see the point there about racial/class bias... i was thinking 
more about areas that were known crime spots/had associated illegal 
activities people may want to avoid(to the point there are regular 
police patrols at night)? also places where getting a phone out could 
lead to it being stolen? i've heard that can be an issue in some areas. 
just wasn't sure if any of those scenarios really deserved tagging 
because i didn't really feel there was a bias there? either way just 
wanted to check (sorry if this shows up as a double post, i saw there 
was a reply to mailing list option i should be using, i get the 
impression the first time didn't send)


On 08/16/18 21:52, Jmapb wrote:
>
> On the other hand, an overlay with data about various risk factors -- 
> crime, weather, accidents, air quality, cancer clusters, whatever -- 
> would be a fine feature for a 3rd party map app to offer. But these 
> things don't belong in the OSM database.
>
> As far as "bad areas" and "class and racial bias" go, I'll admit that 
> I contemplated the idea of tagging the walking paths within some city 
> public housing projects as access=destination, because it reflects the 
> reality on the ground -- generally, people don't walk *through* the 
> projects to get to a destination on the other side. But it's 
> immediately obvious that this is bias-based interpretation: when I say 
> "people" I mean people I know, and OSM is for everybody, not just 
> people I know. So unless the paths are physically impeded, 
> unmaintained to the point of decay, or signed "residents only" they 
> need to be equal to any other walking path.
>
> J
>
>
> On 8/16/2018 4:25 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:
>> Other than dog toilets, this is too subjective to be included in OSM 
>> at all, and tends to stink of class and racial biases.
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 16, 2018, 14:35 seirra <general at sarifria.x10.bz 
>> <mailto:general at sarifria.x10.bz>> wrote:
>>
>>     Hello, i was wondering whether there was a way to tag areas that
>>     may be
>>     risky/dangerous to walk in? i can think of a few streets that
>>     could use
>>     the tag, was there anything of the sort that has been agreed on?
>>
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     Tagging mailing list
>>     Tagging at openstreetmap.org <mailto:Tagging at openstreetmap.org>
>>     https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20180816/a1214f62/attachment.html>