[OSM-talk] "Limitations on mapping private information" - wiki page

[Mateusz Konieczny]

If you (or anyone else) see way to improve it - feel free to do this.

So far (at least in my opinion) this page benefited from edits of different people,
so far there was also no issues with people having incompatible opinions about
what is the consensus opinion.


Sep 16, 2020, 12:04 by nick.whitelegg at solent.ac.uk:

>
> Yes - that's absolutely fine! Just wanted to clarify it here so that the wording could be altered (I'm quite happy to do this myself).
>
> Thanks,
> Nick
>
>
>
>
>
> From:>  Mateusz Konieczny via talk <talk at openstreetmap.org>
>  > Sent:>  16 September 2020 11:01
>  > Cc:>  osm <talk at openstreetmap.org>
>  > Subject:>  Re: [OSM-talk] "Limitations on mapping private information" - wiki page>  >  
>
>
>
> Sep 16, 2020, 10:59 by talk at openstreetmap.org:
>
>>
>> I would understand 'semi-public garden' to be, for example, a garden where you pay an admission fee to enter, or one which is closed at night. Like Martin, I would expect these to be completely acceptable to map.
>>
> Not a native speaker, not a lawyer. I would describe such areas as public (possibly privately owned).
>
>> I think the intention is to deter people from mapping _fully private_ gardens which can be viewed from public roads, is this correct?
>>
> I am not sure about other, but for me it is about discouraging mapping fully private garden in detail.
>
> For example mapping garden area itself and trees (maybe even with their species), but
> micromapping area where someone planted strawberries seems something that
> is out of scope of OSM for privacy reasons.
>
>
>> Nick
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> From:>>  Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com>
>>  >> Sent:>>  16 September 2020 08:51
>>  >> To:>>  Mateusz Konieczny <matkoniecz at tutanota.com>
>>  >> Cc:>>  OSM Talk <talk at openstreetmap.org>
>>  >> Subject:>>  Re: [OSM-talk] "Limitations on mapping private information" - wiki page>>  
>>
>>
>> sent from a phone
>>
>>
>>> On 16. Sep 2020, at 09:41, Mateusz Konieczny via talk <talk at openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Do you think that this page is a good description of community consensus?
>>>
>>
>>
>> There are some points I would like to comment on:
>>
>> - 
>> OpenStreetMap is not a property registry, thus >> do not map individual ownership>>  of buildings or plots. There is no need to split residential landuse into individual plots. (Compare >> Parcel <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Parcel>>> .)
>>
>>
>> Yes, we do not map individual ownership of land and buildings generally, but unless the owner is a person, we could and privacy regulations would not prevent us from doing it. It also isn’t an argument for refraining from mapping property divisions, because these are interesting regardless of _who_ is the owner
>>
>>
>> “some structure of a semi-public garden appear to be the borderline of being acceptable.“
>>
>> IMHO exaggerated, semi-public objects can be mapped in all detail and aren’t borderline cases
>>
>> Well, at least according to my understanding of the term semi-public
>>
>>
>> Cheers Martin 
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20200916/34a06651/attachment.htm>