Presumably, if the business has published this information on their web site or social media profile, that’s also just as easy to verify and just as mappable.
(I have to say I’m not dissuaded by the idea that mapping something might be difficult – have you ever tried cleaning up TIGER data that has been untouched since the original import? Verifying those attributes can definitely be time consuming!)
Separate lines for each one, or all together?
e.g signage:owned=latino; woman; disabled; LGBTQ; veteran
Or owned:signage= perhaps?
Likewise, I look askance at many of the slippery slope arguments leveled in this thread. These arguments ignore the possibility of a narrow approach to this issue that’s limited to POIs in a context (region, society, culture, market) in which these characteristics are widely accepted outside of the OSM bubble, and further limited to a scenario in which we can somehow obtain the owner’s consent. Sometimes it’s hard to think about tagging issues with nuance and avoid absolutism, but that’s exactly what’s necessary here.
I’d hope we’re somewhat careful about how we map minority religions:
This is another situation where the POI’s owner can inform our decisions without dictating them. We aren’t obligated to follow a business’s arbitrary marketing guidelines, but none of us woke up this morning with a goal to misrepresent these POIs. We can keep a neutral point of view even as we document societal phenomena that are not neutral.
There’s a kernel of truth to what you’re saying, but I don’t think it’s that simple. For example, a Black-owned hair salon is much more likely to be skilled at Black hair styles, because that isn’t often taught in cosmetology schools or required by state certification boards. Is every Black hairdresser guaranteed to provide high-quality services? No, probably not, but at least some people consider this to be integral information about a hair salon.
Yes, some entrepreneurs market their identities as a gimmick. That’s capitalism, and it isn’t limited to minority status. But trends like “buy local”, patronizing minority-owned businesses, and shopping at farmers markets aren’t really about transactional value. They’re intended to help sustain a local economy and build a sense of community. Like a lot of trends, they may not fulfill all the lofty promises all the time.
As a mapper, I frequently encounter stuff that I lack the personal experience to pass judgment on, so I map what I can observe and move on. I think the basic question raised at the top of the thread is whether we can expect the same degree of humility on the part of mappers who have even less local context.
While I think this is a relevant example. For hair salons we would do well to more explicitly tag whether they work with textured hair than leave data consumers to infer it from ownership tagging. But that’s another tagging conversation all together…
It is not. It is about the owner. The owner can change and the place can stay the same.
As stated previously, I find this sort of things disturbing because the only use for it would be racism or sexism (one cannot discriminate “in favor” or certain groups without discriminating against other groups) and because, indeed, it deeply reminds me of previous historic symbols enforced upon certain communities with the puprose of discriminating against them. In many place of the world, think about the anti Mulsmim and anti Christian riots in India, this sort of information could be used for targetting puspose.
On the other hands, if these characteristics are advertised by the businesses, why not?
A good idea. Key choice makes it clear that the tag does not apply to just any business that happens to be owned by someone of the specified demographic. Although:
Perhaps something a bit more generic that can encompass various different media where this information may be verified:
advertised:latino_owned=yes
advertised:women_owned-yes
Or as a multi-value key:
advertised:ownership=latino;women;etc
I support tagging this information for businesses that have selected to advertise themselves as such. I see it as identical to tagging shops that have a “we deliver” sign in the window or their website as delivery=yes. FWIW, there’s already folks creating indexes of businesses with these kinds of categorization for the purpose of supporting those businesses and making them more visible/searchable/etc.
I don’t have a strong opinion on the tagging scheme but so far prefer the “advertised” version to the “signage” suggestion.
Agree, with the addition of a compulsory additional tag advertised:source=* (*=sign, website, etc.) so it will be easy to verify the source of the advertised information and keep it up to date.
we should only tag it if the venue advertises it as that, rather than trying to hunt down private information. If a large mine advertises themselves as “woman owned!
”, then yes we should map that. Since people want to record this, and search by it, it belongs in OSM IMO.
there is more between they advertise it and hunting down private information, e.g. ownership could have to be made public and is openly available despite they do not use it for advertising.
If it is free for minorities to attract customers based on race or other criteria then it is also free for others to boycott such places. Therefore I think that it is a good idea to map such owners and their characteristics because it enables users to make their own choices. People who want to steer clear of left-wing virtue-signallers should be able to do so. If they want to boycott such venues out of existence, well that’s their right. We shouldn’t patronise our users who found their own way to fight discrimination and racism. They may firmly believe that pro-minority equals anti-white. We should enable them to make their own choices. In my country this is called “voting with the wallet.”
I thought OSM is a map service, not a recommendation service.
also while they might be now publishing the information voluntarily, it could backfire once a racist government gets into power
A map shows the way, i.e. tells people where to go (or not to go).
It could even happen unrelated to the government as seen by the sectarian riots in India.
Normally I would say if a business is advertising itself as owned by someone in a certain group of people, it’s mappable. But there’s a complication specific to the types of groups we see, in that they’re protected characteristics. The OSMF Terms of use prohibit transmitting information like personal data revealing racial or ethnic origin, or a number of other protected criteria. This is because if you collect a database of this information, you are subject to additional legal requirements.
This is similar to how although individuals can disclose their racial or ethnic origin, collecting that into a database is not legal unless you take special measures when handling the data.
I recommend asking the LWG if this is allowed.
While mapping existing advertising poster would represent the groud truth, the whole idea of enabling racist or sexist discrimination in one direction or another remains disturbing.
We shouldn’t encourage or endorse racism on OSM. That is the only purpose of adding this information. The fact that so many people on this thread seem to think racism is ok as long as it’s carried out by a minority deeply troubles me.
How would anyone feel if a minority group in south africa started tagging local businesses with white_owned because they want to support only businesses from their own “community”.
This is a minefield that will upset and racialise OSM in a way that doesn’t need to happen. Leave it off OSM
I respect your opinion, that such markers as “unpleasant odour from neighbor manufacture” or “there is no shadow between 9 and 10 pm in July” have a place on maps, cause they are
tell people where to (or not to go)
I strongly disagree and prefer not to continue the discussion.
Would removing the tag from a “black-owned business” by someone who does not consider the owner to be a member of the claimed group be a breach of privacy?