[OSM-talk] Limitations on mapping private information

Warin 61sundowner at gmail.com
Wed Feb 14 21:15:46 UTC 2018


On 15-Feb-18 12:29 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> 2018-02-14 14:10 GMT+01:00 Mateusz Konieczny <matkoniecz at gmail.com 
> <mailto:matkoniecz at gmail.com>>:
>
>     On Sat, 10 Feb 2018 00:50:32 +0100
>     Tom Pfeifer <t.pfeifer at computer.org
>     <mailto:t.pfeifer at computer.org>> wrote:
>
>     >
>     https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Limitations_on_mapping_private_information
>     <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Limitations_on_mapping_private_information>
>
>     What I miss is some generic "do not map completely private
>     data".
>
>
>
>
> it might not always be clear what "completely private data" is. E.g. 
> if you map the surface properties of private ground, or private 
> swimming pools, these could be private details if you already know who 
> lives there, but it isn't private data as long as you don't know it. 
> And it might be relevant data for others (e.g. to see how much of an 
> area is sealed, or to estimate how much water is "wasted" in swimming 
> pools, etc.).

Swimming pools, even private ones, can be used to fight fires. So that 
information can serve public good.

Private buildings may need a fire fought on them. So that information 
can serve the private owner.

Some don't want their information mapped in OSM due to the perceived 
increased risk of threat.

I take the view that if I can see it, asa member of the public, then it 
is ok to map.

These things need to be judged locally to suit local conditions. .

>
>
>     ======================
>
>     Maybe also mention some opposite cases? For example we map military
>     areas, also in countries that have laws forbidding doing this.
>
>
>
>
> has nothing to do with "private data", IMHO
>
>
>
>     ======================
>
>     I am unsure about "do not add the names of inhabitants to dwellings".
>
>     I would describe my position as:
>
>     In Europe/North America, information who lives at given location is
>     generally private and confidential. In addition it is not necessary
>     as we have addresses that are considered public.
>
People change their homes from time to time, I think here it is on 
average every 10 years.
In that circumstance of semiregular changes I don't think it should be 
mapped.

How does mapping this data help the average map user?
Consider the map lacks basic data in many areas of the world, greater 
good can be done by mapping this basic missing data.

>     But significant part of people across the world have no addresses[1].
>     These places are generally not currently mapped in OSM, so how to
>     describe locating schemes used by their residents remains an unsolved
>     problem.
>
>
Some places in Australia are known by the names of the home/homestead.
And that name can serve as an address.

>
> likely the solution is not putting all these people with their names 
> in OSM. "do not add the names of inhabitants to dwellings" seems fine 
> to me.
> They could use geocordinates, o solutions like what-three-fucks ;-)
>
> Or maybe start inventing/assigning street names and housenumbers, if 
> you just do it without a lot of coordination you might create some 
> ambiguities, but it would probably already solve most of the issue.

Inventing stuff is not what OSM is about.

>
>
> Cheers,
> Martin

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20180215/758a5f27/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the talk mailing list