[OSM-talk] About OSM social implications and what can/should be displayed on the map (or not)

[James]

Not showing things on map to me is a form of censorship. I.E if a study
finds that the sight of trees triggers suicide by hanging do we start
removing all tree icons?

This sets a precedent to what can and can't be displayed on map. There are
some disputed boarders that are displayed differently in Google maps
depending on where you view it from(
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9ZMub2UrKU ) and the reasons are mostly
political. The map should show "what is there" is my philosophy

On Fri, Jun 29, 2018, 11:30 AM Carlos Cámara, <carlos.camara at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> After participating in this openstreetmap-carto issue
> <https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/3210>
> discussing to create an icon for casinos in which I stated that they should
> not be highlighted with an icon due to their grave consequences derived
> from gambling addiction (there are plenty of scientific literature about
> it), I was pointed out that OSM does not take "any ethical stance and
> display the world as it is."
>
> It is for that reason that I want to raise that particular topic to OSM
> community:
> Is that true? and if so, should it be that way?
>
> Long story short: although I am aware that it is a sensible and polemic
> issue, I think that such position does not make much sense in a project
> like OSM as I believe that OSM has a great social responsibility and
> opportunity as well. It is for that reason that we could be much more aware
> and sensitive to those matters and act accordingly.
>
> My reasons for such statement are the following ones:
>
> First: Any map is also a political act in terms that the mappers decide
> which information is displayed and which one is not, but also in the way we
> represent countries in terms of size and position (spoiler alert: countries
> are not like we represent them on the maps, and definitely are far
> different from the common web-mercator projection -more about that on this
> Wikipedia article <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map_projection> or, if
> even in this chapter of West Wing TV series
> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVX-PrBRtTY>). This is to say that it is
> impossible to represent reality as it is due to the fact that it is
> impossible to project the Earth onto a flat surface without
> errors/distortions.  OSM is no exception to that and, as such, it has a
> cultural and techno-political perspective/bias even if we are not aware of
> that. We should not forget about that (and leads us to the following point).
>
> Second: The very foundations of OSM as a project are techno-political in
> terms that it was created to overcome the lack of certain geographical
> information about certain areas or topics. This is even more obvious in
> HOSM or the not-at-all-accidental use of open licenses from its very
> beginning.
>
> Third: by creating the map the way we love, we are also creating the world
> as we would love to live in. Since most of OSM contributors decide to share
> their free time with other mappers around the world in making the best
> possible map, we could infer (yes, I acknowledge certain bias here which
> would require much more research) that we would love to live in a world
> where sharing was considered as a positive value and change-driver for a
> better world which also promoted other positive values such as openness to
> information, collaboration, inclusiveness, communication and discussion
> (which, surprise, are OSM's pillars). Following that reasoning, I believe
> that OSM should set the grounds for a world aligned with their values by
> acting accordingly. It is doing so anyway, so why not to take some time to
> reflect on that instead of avoiding discussion based on the illusion that
> we are not taking part in this?
>
> Fourth: OSM has a complexity that makes it difficult for newcomers to
> wholly understand it (let alone to get involved). Part of these
> difficulties lie in the fact that OSM is, in fact, a complex ecosystem
> formed by a spatial database, a community, a map (or better, a series of
> maps), 3rd party apps... that cannot be appreciated at first sight, since
> many newcomers' first contact with OSM is the openstreetmap.org which, in
> fact, is even more complex than that as it is in turn based in several
> components such as nominatim, javascript libraries or renders such as
> carto, transport, HOSM...  What most of these people see there (and what
> they are likely looking for) is a map "similar to Google maps" yet
> different. This is to say that openstreetmap-carto is OSM's business card,
> which should serve as an entry point to the project to people from many
> conditions and hence, we have a responsibility in deciding what do we
> display and how we do it (I'm sure we are all more or less aware of that
> and there are great efforts and success in making it a great default
> renderer -I honestly love how fast it has improved in recent time).
>
> Unfortunately, even if someone completely agreed with all those points, I
> have to acknowledge that there is not a single and non-controversial
> position that can be taken from them. Even if we agreed with the fact that
> we have a social responsibility, several questions arise: Which are those
> polemic features that we are talking about? and, what should we do with
> them?
>
> Let's start with the latter:
>
> IMHO there are several options for dealing with polemic features, like the
> following ones:
>
>    1. Not display them at all on openstreetmap-carto (and possibly,
>    creating a specific renderer for that purpose)
>    2. Display them on openstreetmap-carto, but discretely, without
>    highlighting them (eg: by only displaying its name, without an icon or with
>    a generic one)
>    3. Keep openstreetmap-carto as it is and as it is currently evolving
>    and simply add a new "sensitive renderer" without that sensitive
>    information and possibly highlighting other ones (I know that this is not a
>    good name as it has ethical connotations/judgements, but I can't think of a
>    better name and I think it serves to clearly explain what I wanted to say).
>    We could discuss whether it is to be used as a default renderer or not.
>    4. ...
>    5. Please note that I am not arguing for their removal from the
>    database, as I acknowledge that those features can be useful even for
>    detractors (eg: downloading that data with overpass to make a study
>    comparing them with other sources of information)
>
> But again, where are the limits of those polemic features? how we define
> what should be included and what not?
>
>    1. Considering a feature as hazardous activities may not seem good
>    criteria since there are many activities with negative consequences for the
>    humans that are mapped and currently displayed like tobacco shops, alcohol
>    shops, whereas others (like casinos or gambling) are not displayed with the
>    same importance.
>    2. Legally accepted activities are also controversial, because some
>    features may be legal in one country whereas forbidden in many others (eg:
>    coffee shops, brothels, guns' shops, alcohol...)
>    3. Considering something as of "public interest" is also problematic:
>    Even socially accepted features for some groups may be reprovable for
>    others (such as butchers, shops that sell meat or bullfighting rings to
>    name a few).
>
> In order to overcome those matters (and if I am not wrong), so far the
> position on this regards is to render everything on openstreetmap-carto
> provided the following conditions: A) there is a significant number of uses
> (don't know how much is "significant"), B) someone creates an issue
> requesting for it, C) someone designs an icon or a representation for it,
> D) someone implements it by creating a Pull request that is merged into
> openstreetmap-carto project.
>
> It seems a sensible approach as it tries to be both as objective as
> possible and pragmatic but is not free from polemics: behind the appearance
> of not taking part on the political debate, the truth is that the resulting
> map has a strong Eurocentric and heteropatriarchal perspective which may
> not take into account diversity either in the world nor in OSM's community
> (which does not have to do with figures about representativity). Or in
> other words, it is like European white heterosexual males were doing a kind
> of digital colonization of the world by imposing their rules simply because
> other groups are not participating in the decision-making process and hence
> their needs/opinions have not been taken into account.
>
> Unfortunately, again I don't have solutions for that, and that's why I
> wanted to raise the debate on what I consider to be an important matter for
> OSM's project and an opportunity to make it even better.
>
> Willing to read your points of view on that matter.
>
>
>
> Carlos Cámara
> http://carloscamara.es
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20180629/93ec1224/attachment-0001.html>