[Tagging] areas of risk
adamfranco at gmail.com
Fri Aug 17 21:14:01 UTC 2018
What areas are "dangerous" is very much a matter of race and class in the
USA and likely in many other parts of the world.
For example, there are wealthy mostly-white neighborhoods in many American
suburbs where a person-of-color just walking or driving through is cause
for residents to (injustly) call the police. This can VERY dangerous for
these people of color and has resulted in the police shooting completely
Similarly, a plaza where many pockets are picked may be "dangerous" for
unsuspecting tourists fiddling with their cameras, but be safe for locals
who aren't staring at the vistas. It also may have no crime during certain
hours or when a police officer happens to be monitoring the area.
Many places may seem dangerous to outsiders, but are totally comfortable
for locals. In other places, no one messes with the wealthy foreign
tourists, but locals are subjugated to inhumane and dangerous conditions
that place them at extreme risk.
Another "risk" case would be an area where a civil war or conflict has
divided who controls what land. Either side of the line of control may be
incredibly risky for people affiliated with the other side but not to the
supporters of those in control.
Overall, if a level or perception of risk is very dependent on who you are
and what your background is, then it is going to be a fraught thing to try
to map. Similarly, past crimes are not a guarantee of future crimes.
As was mentioned above, if you don't feel comfortable giving specific
examples, then it is pretty impossible to have a discussion of the merits
of the idea.
On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 2:57 PM, seirra <general at sarifria.x10.bz> wrote:
> well like i said, i meant more for specific things that aren't just
> generalisations where it may actively prevent you from doing something or
> where it is a regular occurrence. i don't personally see the race/class
> related aspect, but as previously said i respect that others feel it is
> there and thus should be avoided (i hope i'm not offending, although i
> respect the final decision i really don't understand)
> On 08/17/18 18:30, Paul Johnson wrote:
> Then you're just splitting class and race hairs.
> On Fri, Aug 17, 2018, 11:20 seirra <general at sarifria.x10.bz> wrote:
>> there can be notable areas though, outside of what may usually be expected
>> On 08/17/18 16:03, Paul Johnson wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 16, 2018, 16:35 seirra <general at sarifria.x10.bz> 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)
>> At that point, you're just avoiding cities in general, as crime rates
>> tend to increase proportionally to population density.
>> Tagging mailing listTagging at openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> Tagging mailing listTagging at openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging