[OSM-talk] Just facts?
Christoph Hormann
chris_hormann at gmx.de
Thu Jun 19 17:46:46 UTC 2014
On Thursday 19 June 2014, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>
> "Ultimately, map data is pretty much fact and whether it exists or
> not is a binary statement. [...]
This is IMO what mapping should aim at, as outlined by the verifiability
rule - practical mapping and actual data is however often quite far
away from this goal.
More importantly though i think the most significant way to take
influence for a mapper is through selection of what to map and what
not. Since there is neither a policy nor a mechanism to enforce
completeness of mapping and it is unrealistic to create such what is
mapped and what is not represents a huge element of subjectivity and
possibly bias in the data even if all the data itself is strictly
factual and verifiable.
Imagine for example someone mapping all the buildings in a town but
deliberately leaving one building unmapped. It is much more likely
then this building stays missing from the database than if the
buildings had not been mapped systematically but over time by community
efforts. And there is nothing factually wrong with such mappping, it
is just incomplete.
But even without deliberate attempts to influence the mapping like this
it seems clear to me that paid mapping will focus on different things
than normal community mapping. Kind of 'where the money is' vs. 'where
the people and their interests are'. If suddenly half of the mapping
in OSM would be paid mapping you can be certain that the thematic and
regional focus of OSM would change - and again without any non-factual
or non-verifiable elements in the data itself.
Getting back to the comparison with Wikipedia i think there are a number
of important differences to keep in mind when comparing these two.
- In contrast to the data in Wikipedia the OSM data is normally not
viewed directly, it is used in maps and other services which provide an
additional layer of abstraction and interpretation and due to the
diversity of map styles and services available the possibilities for
someone editing OSM data to take influence in some form are much more
indirect than in case of Wikipedia.
- One of the major mechanisms leading to bias in Wikipedia is the
removal of data. You can only effectively push a certain POV if you
can actually remove information unfavourable to it. For OSM this would
mean simple additions of new data by paid mappers would probably be
less critical than deletions and modifications like changing tags.
--
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/
More information about the talk
mailing list