[OSM-talk] Some thoughts against remote mapping

[Johan C]

2015-06-13 16:37 GMT+02:00 Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org>:

> 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.)
>
>
It's well within the spirit of OSM to map remotely from an armchair, as
long as it represents actual on-the-ground data. This means that
(satellite) photo's, gps tracks, local knowledge, datasets etc. can all be
used for mapping. Of course considering licensing, quality of the
photo's/data, ageing of photo's/data.


> 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.
>
>
Some comments on statements by Erica:

<Mapping, on the other hand, is an activity that is inherently the other
way around — best and most accurately done by residents of a place.>
It's true that locals have local knowledge which can enrich a map. Though
Google shows that it's possible to create maps with high quality without
using locals. By just having some cars with GPSses and photos driving
around, buying datasets, extracting information from websites and the
Android users Google has created a map which is being used massively.
Possibly mainly to keep maintaining cost low Google accepts input from
locals.

<Having dealt with these challenges nearly from day one of Map Kibera, I’m
particularly sensitive to the question “How does a map help the people
living in the place represented?”>
Great 'what' question. People can live for years without a map of their
local community, so why should they start filling in a blank map after all?

I've searched her article for an answer to her question, but can't find it.
Though there are two clues in her article:
1. 'the real target of any development-oriented data effort — actual
improvements in the lives of the world’s poor and marginalized.'
2. '...to solve this problem of invisibility bestowed by poverty.'

Do we, the westerners, want actual improvements in the lives of the world's
poor and marginalized, or are it these people themselves who want this?
And is it true that the poor are invisible (on a map) and that they have
that problem? Or should it be a westerner telling them they have a problem
(ah, I didn't know I had that problem) which then can be solved by mapping
projects engaging locals?

I can only see one clear reason to help the poor people from a westerners
view: in case of a disaster, NGO's can help people by providing food,
clothes, housing. In order to reach them, maps are a lifesaver. Luckily OSM
has the possibility of remote mapping (Google forbids it) using up-to-date
satellite imagery which helps these lifesaving efforts.

Other than disaster mapping, it's fine to me when locals don't want their
blank map being filled in at all. And if they do want a blank map being
filled, they can do it themselves by the standard tools. The poor can do
without mapping projects organized by non-locals. It's enough for
non-locals to be there when locals ask for support.

Cheers, Johan


> 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
>
> --
> Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frederik at remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
>
> _______________________________________________
> talk mailing list
> talk at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20150614/ba17a8c8/attachment.html>