[Talk-us] Removal of sensitive data in East Bay Regional Park District, CA

[Yury Yatsynovich]

"We should respect the autonomy of a community to set mapping standards" --
but we still map, say, China, even though Chinese government explicitly
prohibits this...

In my opinion, OSM should contain properly collected (hence, exclude
copyrighted and private data) and verifiable data. If the discussed sites
are marked with signs and there are other public sources of information
about them, it should be in OSM. If the added info is not public and can
not be verified locally then it should be deleted. Any information can be
used for evil purposes, but OSM doesn't constrain who and how can use its
data.

On Thu, May 12, 2022, 9:32 AM Brian M. Sperlongano <zelonewolf at gmail.com>
wrote:

> I appreciate all the thoughtful replies on this topic.  It's hard for me
> to weigh in substantively on the topic simply because I don't feel that I'm
> informed enough about tribally sensitive areas to really offer an informed
> opinion.  What I do know is that the representatives of the people of
> California freely created the East Bay Regional Park District to, among
> other things, think about how best to manage the lands under their
> administration.  Absent some really compelling reason why we should
> second-guess their judgement on this topic, our default position ought to
> be to respect their position on sensitive areas.  We should respect the
> autonomy of a community to set mapping standards, and that "community"
> should include the broader society that cares what gets put on maps and not
> just the few of us that choose to actively participate in this project.
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20220512/117fd939/attachment.htm>