[Tagging] Urbex

moltonel at gmail.com moltonel at gmail.com
Tue Jan 9 21:14:17 UTC 2018



On January 8, 2018 11:39:51 PM GMT+00:00, Kevin Kenny <kevin.b.kenny+osm at gmail.com> wrote:
>On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 6:31 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
><dieterdreist at gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>> are we encouraging / supporting / recommending something because we
>map
>> it?
>>
>
>Some seem to think so. Witness municipalities asking us to remove their
>streets
>from the map, public land managers asking us not to map certain trails,
>and
>so
>on. Apparently, admitting that something exists may be implicitly
>condoning
>it.

Don't confuse mapping the physical features with mapping the activities officially allowed and/or actually taking place.

highway=service ? Must-have.
access=no ? Important.
lit=no ? Useful.
amenity=black_market ? No way.

I've done lots of urbex over the years. It's quite popular in France. But it's illegal pretty much by definition; you don't call it urbex if you're allowed to visit. Even if urbex was legal (and therefore mappable), a site's urbex-worthynes is so subjective and personal that it'd be impossible to map meaningfuly. I suggest deleting any urbex tag you encounter.

-- 
Vdp
Sent from a phone.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20180109/b32af773/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list