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

[Brian M. Sperlongano]

First the story is that they copied the information from a copyright map.
Now the claim is a survey?

On Thu, May 12, 2022, 11:01 AM Mike Thompson <miketho16 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Here is a response from the original mapper:
>
> Took a look at the archive of posts. Strong opinions! I’ll need some time
> to sign up and possibly post a response myself, but I would say that I am
> strongly opposed to outright removing these. These sites are regularly
> walked over by large cattle and rutted by feral hogs. There is no danger
> posed by hikers visiting them under park rules, and there are legitimate
> reasons people might want to visit them respectfully and without impact. At
> most, adding a note or similar call-out on the sites might be added - but
> at the risk of drawing the very unwanted attention being discussed.
>
> Defending against illegal acts through censorship of maps is a very
> slippery slope along which everything of significance which conceivably
> could be put at risk gets deleted from OSM.
>
> On Thu, May 12, 2022 at 8:57 AM Brian Stromberg <brian.stromberg at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I think the concern is probably that OSM is fed directly into various
>> apps and services. The maps on the park's website may contain the same
>> information but they are not distributed in the same way.
>>
>> Although, after looking at the maps they provide, I don't think the
>> cultural resources are included on the park maps, so the argument that "the
>> information is available anyway" doesn't really hold up.
>>
>> https://www.ebparks.org/sites/default/files/morgan_territory_map.pdf
>>
>> --
>> Brian
>>
>>
>> On Thu, May 12, 2022 at 10:42 AM Mike Thompson <miketho16 at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, May 12, 2022 at 8:30 AM Clay Smalley <claysmalley at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, May 12, 2022 at 10:25 AM Mike Thompson <miketho16 at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The argument being made by the Park District is that having this
>>>>> information available to the public endangers these sites.  That argument
>>>>> doesn't make sense when the information is already available to the public
>>>>> elsewhere.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps the East Bay Regional Park District has also contacted this
>>>> source of information and requested that they remove it as well. This
>>>> doesn't mean it belongs on OSM.
>>>>
>>> Perhaps, but we don't know that.   There is also a guidebook (available
>>> on the website in question), are they going after the author and publisher
>>> of that?
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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/b1578214/attachment.htm>