[OSM-talk] Some thoughts against remote mapping

[Jóhannes Birgir Jensson]

I find this point of view to be astounding in its arrogance and indeed 
blatant colonialistic spirit. The noble savages should not be influenced 
by us, the decadent Westerners. A sickening insular attitude that I have 
not found in similar projects like Project Gutenberg and Wikipedia.

When do I stop being a local, when I cross my street, when I cross into 
the next neighborhood, when I cross into the next settlement, next 
region, next country? Where is the limit of local?

There is nothing taken away by remote mapping, indeed what is given is 
very valuable, time and commitment to building a base map upon which it 
is easier for locals to add their own "flavour".

I've written some thoughts on this myself, and indeed find this to be an 
opportune time to point at my project Askja, on how to make mapping 
remotely even easier and more focused.

My thoughts are found here: http://joi.betra.is/?p=1769

The TL;DR is, we are building a map of the world and we need more people 
to do more work on more places, remotely or not.

Remote mapping - lets do more


Þann 13.6.2015 14:37, skrifaði Frederik Ramm:
> Hi,
>
>     I'm known for being critical of armchair mapping by people with no
> personal connection tho the area being mapped. Whether done for fun, for
> money, or to help, I think that in most cases it is a bad idea that runs
> against the spirit of OSM.
>
> (I'm willing to concede that there are exceptions, and that sometimes
> doing something that's against the spirit may still be useful. But these
> are individual cases, to be carefully justified, and remote mapping
> should never become anyone's standard mode of contribution.)
>
> Until now I thought that the main exception, one that even I would have
> to accept, is mapping for humanitarian purposes.
>
> I was all the more surprised - positively surprised - to read this
> thoughtful essay by Erica Hagen, who founded Map Kibera:
>
> http://groundtruth.in/2015/06/05/osm-mapping-power-to-the-people/
>
> I'd encourage everyone to read that. It questions some rarely questioned
> assumptions; it even says that mapping by locals doesn't really "count"
> if those locals are just doing it for the money (a sentiment that I've
> always felt but rarely dared to express, because who can expect locals
> in the poorest parts of the world to map "for fun" like privileged
> westerners do?).
>
> It also says that "local" isn't "local" if the locals from the wealthy
> city map the slum in their midst. I've tended to routinely associate the
> call for "more diversity" in OSM as mainly being one for levelling the
> gender playing field but this article goes much further.
>
> In some parts the article echoes a rather more acerbic posting written
> last month by Gwilym Eades, a university lecturer in London:
>
> http://place-memes.blogspot.de/2015/05/the-hubris-of-proactive-disaster-mapping.html
>
> which essentially accused humanitarian mapping (and as I would add, any
> remote mapping really) of "homogenising, westernising, and colonising"
> the map.
>
> I don't agree with everything written in these postings but they
> certainly deserve some wider audience, and that's why I am writing this
> here - since neither author is on these lists and I haven't seen their
> messages mentioned or quoted anywhere.
>
> I think the tl;dr of both these postings could be: "Whenever you give
> someone a map by remote mapping, you also take something away from them."
>
> Bye
> Frederik
>