[OSM-talk] About OSM social implications and what can/should be displayed on the map (or not)
Jan Martinec
jan at martinec.name
Fri Jun 29 16:53:04 UTC 2018
Hello,
TL;DR: I disagree with the proposal, OSM would fall apart without OTGR.
As for "we should change the world by creating the map", this is THE
antithesis to OpenStreetMap. As soon we depart from the On-The-Ground
Rule, and start mapping "what _I_think_ ought (not) exist", we become
OpenGeoFiction2 and perish in edit wars: opinion is unfalsifiable and
unverifiable, as opposed to physical features.
"Do not be angry at the mirror if you dislike what you see there", so to
speak. Fix the world and _then_ edit its map to reflect the new status,
sure; but breaking the mirror is the opposite of fixing, even if you
start doing it in tiny pieces and For the Greater Good. (I am aware that
the metaphor leaks - what gets mapped and what gets displayed can never
be a perfect mirror, bias will always be there - but the proposal seems
to suggest that we dispose of OTGR altogether.) As you note, there is no
clear consensus even on such things as boundaries.
Speaking of HOTOSM, that's a great counterexample, actually: many things
mapped in HOT are unlikable: slums, refugee camps, disaster outcomes.
Should we undisplay and suppress those, too, to make the map _seem_ nicer?
See also this official OSMF statement on disputed features; I think it's
applicable to most disputed elements:
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/w/images/d/d8/DisputedTerritoriesInformation.pdf
(If I may summarize: existence in map is not endorsement, physical
reality trumps wishes.)
Regards,
Jan "Piskvor" Martinec
Dne 06/29/18 v 17:50 James napsal(a):
> 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
> <mailto: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 inthis
> 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 <http://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 <mailto:talk at openstreetmap.org>
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20180629/210ca1f8/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the talk
mailing list