This may be off-topic, but if you wouldn’t mind elaborating on this point, I’m sure I’m not the only one who’s curious about what’s changing in 19 days.
3 Likes
I don’t see were mapping the existence of a public sign has any relation to privacy in Europe. We also map things like the religion,… of a church (which is signposted as well). Doesn’t this effect the privacy of people (like the priest) as well? If you see a difference, can you elaborate why mapping the one sign is OK and the other one is not in regards of privacy?
Though I agree, mapping the fact the priest is actual catholic would be something privacy-related. Same goes for mapping the fact, the owner of a shop is female.
In general, I would not like to have such kind of “advertisement/expressions of opinions” in OSM. Neither that ad of “woman owned place” nor “buy 1 get 1 free” nor “coke for 99ct”
2 Likes
Tagging the church as catholic is not tagging an ownership.
Firstly, the church is not owned by a single priest, but to the church institution (depening of religion). It’s more like a “brand” if we need to compare.
Secondly, we do not tag an “ownership” of the church, but rather a group of people the service is related to. There will be churches serving for many religions or churches when religion do not “own” the property, but makes services.
In short - if the church is tagged as “catholic” that means it serves for catholics, not that it’s owned by a catholic priest.
2 Likes
New privacy law going in to force on September 1st, main intent is to retain eequivalence with the EU/GDPR, but the change wrt legal entities is a nice side effect (and not GDPR related).
So tagging the religion of the priest operating the church (at least in Germany it’s pretty common he is living in church property which we also tag accordingly) is not a violation of his privacy. That’s what you saying, did I got that right? Or if you don’t like my church example, the same applies for monasteries.
Then why it’s a violation of privacy tagging the existence of an advertisement sign on a shop saying the business is woman owned or family owned or Latino owned?
Again, because “catholic” is not an ownership, but a group of people the church is specialized for. You made an assumtion that catholic church is owned by a catholic priest (it’s not, it’s owned by a organisation). I don’t know how other religions work in those cases too.
It is closer to a situation when a hairdresser is specified for woman. We tag those, becuase this is a trait of the businness. The owner may be a woman, may be not, it’s an assumption you can make.
From my understanding “black-owned bussiness” does not mean only black people can use those places. Only that the bussiness chooses to advert itself as such, so it’s not the same situation as religon or even “woman-specified” hairdresser.
1 Like
So in your understanding, a catholic church can only be used by Catholics? If I’m not catholic, I can’t get in? That’s not my experience.
Same like a catholic/baptist/… church put out a sign attracting catholic/baptist/… people, a black/female shop owner can put a sign to attract black/female customer. The difference I see, the priest servicing in a church is required to have the religion we map, where the staff in a black/female-owned shop not necessarily needs to be black/female.
If tagging the “ownership”-sign is a violation of privacy, how can it be not a violation of privacy to map the religion?
I won’t respond to the first paragraph. You clearly understand the point, but you try to be nit-picky about the wording.
The second paragraph is simply incorrect. You have made wrong assumpitions again. There are plenty of situations when church service (the guy who is sitting in sacritry doing things), organist or cleaning staff are not catholic.
For the third (and last time) - the difference is the catholic church is specified for catholic - ownership is just an assumption you make, black-owned bussiness is not specified for Black people. If it is bussiness specified for a certain group - we tag those already, no problem there.
The Wiki page “Limitations on mapping private information” states:
If what you are describing is an example of OSM/the OSMF respecting/enforcing privacy rights of legal entities, could you document it on the Wiki for future reference? It would be a nice piece of documentation to have if we ever decide to formulate a guideline for when we should not map legal entities.
Sorry for going off-topic with this, but we do map defence infrastructure, as long as it meets our usual criteria of what does and doesn’t go on the map. People map trenches, missile silos, ammunition storages, railways for military use etc. Wiki documentation also says mapping military stuff is within OSM mapping guidelines but people should not do it if laws in their country prohibit it.
You are making exactly my point here.
Then we understand each other. I misunderstood your previous statement.
I never talked about other “staff” then the priest. That the priest in a catholic church is actual catholic is a wrong assumption? That all monks/nuns in a catholic monastery are catholic is a wrong assumption? In my understanding that’s a fact. But maybe you can explain, why this is totally wrong and a larger amount of priests/monks/nuns servicing/living in catholic churches/monasteries are actually not catholic?
Maybe you misunderstand me or I expressed myself not proper. The argument was: We should not add the gender or race of an owner to the database, because it’s violating privacy of persons related to that object.
amenity=monastery states the religion and gender should be added to such objects. The tag was introduced in 2011. If it seems to be totally fine to map the religion and gender of the residents in a monastery, why it’s not fine to map it for a shop? Does residents have less privacy-rights than owners?
There are plenty of arguments against mapping the information of the owner or advertisements of a shop. Just privacy-wise race, gender and religion are on the same level as well as owner or residents. If it’s not ok to add these kind of data for owners for privacy-reasons, than I believe we should also think about other persons related to objects.
Agree. The point isn’t about just ownership, but whether any information we record could be used by hate groups to inflict harm on a specific group.
It’s a bit to general in my understanding, as I believe you would find for any object we map someone who might use OSM to harm that object. I would rather say, we should only map information, which are on the ground available. As it seems to be ok for them that this information is public. If there is no such sign, but in some other database/website/phone book,… this information can be found, I believe we should not add this information to our database, as it seems that information should not be obvious for everyone.
And the main point of documenting this information would be to discriminate against certain groups, according to the first post on the basis of ethnic or gender identity according to the first post.
While I don’t see why documenting advertising should be a problem, let me repeat that the whole idea is problematic. Possibly OK legally in some places but in any case problematic ethically.
2 Likes
I am really confused. So why is a church advertising its domination different from a business owner advertising their membersship in a protected group. We are not discloing anything the organization has not already maded clear to the general public themselves.
If they state they are LGBT and fly a pride flag outside their establishment then we should be recognizing them as a LGBT business. There are many owners who don’t announce thier sexual orientation. It is no different then a mosque in a devoutly Christian area.
It is not our job to decide whether to include self-reported information. If we include religious organizations that might get attacked by those from the surrounding community that don’t appreciate thier presence. Why do we treat businesses that do the same thing any differently.
Well, first the denomiation of the church targets the customers, just like a vegan retaurant would. Secondly, one choses to adhere or not to a particular religious movements while the color of the skin or the gender identity is generally something people have to live with.
I have noticed racist and sexist tendencies to reduce people to these traits, but what a person says and does is more important to its identity than these more or less assigned traits, I believe.
2 Likes
Why does that matter? The business owner is making a point to that they are black, female and lesbian. They may be doing it to attract a certain demographic to thier business or making a larger statement.
Whatever thier reason, we are ignoring that statement on supposed privacy or safety grounds. Issues they were well aware of when they placed a pride flag and wrote “LGBT owned” on front of their business which is likely thier main source of income.
The whole idea of protecting a business feels very partonizing!
As stated many times, I suppose it would represent the ground truth if the business introduces itself that way and would be OK depending of the particular legal system .
However, it’s not because we could that we should. Again, the perspective of enabling racism and sexism as explicitely stated by the OP is problematic. It might just be a personal sensitivity.
2 Likes
It’s the same thing all over again. It’s not the same for the reasons I stated before. It’s not an information about a certain person, but about the community/institution being on charge here. Funny enough, some female orders are not even owned by a woman, but work more like a “branch” of male counterparts.
And again, female order is also the main community they serve. While monasteires may, or may not, also be opened for turists or pilgrims of many religions and genders, they main point of existence will still be to gather woman catholics who want to join them. It’s more like a gender-specified schools - happy to tag those.
The problem with miniority-onwed bussinesses is that it gives an information about the ownership and… nothing more. Unless there is some hidden meaning that noone stated yet, it’s just a private information about the owner, nothing more.
2 Likes