[Tagging] areas of risk

Warin 61sundowner at gmail.com
Thu Aug 16 22:03:32 UTC 2018


There has never been agreement here on 'dangerous' areas. Even after 
people have lost there lives using GPS to go in to 'dangerous areas'.
Some 'dangerous areas' require theĀ  police to go heavily armed and in 
large numbers to ensure their own survival.

Even the mapping of areas of land mines has been left to third parties.

On 17/08/18 07:34, seirra wrote:
>
> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20180817/f28d3b80/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list