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

[Bill Ricker]

On Thu, May 12, 2022 at 8:04 PM Minh Nguyen <minh at nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us>
wrote:

>  Despite claiming to be a draft, it is
> often cited as a community consensus. [1]
>

Perhaps we should move it forward from Draft status, recognizing *de facto*
consensus or using the process for *de juré* consensus.


> It seems that those who wish to keep this data on the map have the
> burden of explaining why this case is so exceptional.
>

+1
and FWIW that seems a nearly impossible burden of proof, and that's *OK*.
So far, the only arguments for it being right to have put it in in the
first place or for keeping it ring hollow as either defensive or
freedom-absolutist. Nope.  Freedom is not absolute.

ALSO. Same should apply to *ecologically* sensitive regions, regions
threatened by rather than benefiting from *casual* EcoTourism.
E.g.,  i *think* a forestry group inadvertently leaked enough information
for me to deduce where the possibly last ****** near an Interstate in the
North East is ... there may be one other, as this doesn't match the prior
rumors I'd collected ? (and likely are others along the Apalachian Trail,
inaccessible to *casual* EcoTourists with only a daypack) There is no <
*expletive*> way i'm mapping that. Or posting what i *think* i learned in
some forum. I wouldn't even schedule my own hike there without coordinating
with the cognizant forestry ranger station.
Because responsible stewardship.

[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Special:PermanentLink/2203551
>

-- 
Bill Ricker
bill.n1vux at gmail.com
https://www.linkedin.com/in/n1vux
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20220513/385288bc/attachment.htm>