Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on [email protected] for help. Thanks :)
Hello All, This is just a friendly reminder to read the Forum Charter where you wish to post before posting in it. :)

OpenStreetMap Unnecessary Public Listing of our Farm Buildings / Features

245

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 849 ✭✭✭ Easten


    The same company should follow proper intellectual property protection process like registering their manufacturing process if they want to keep it protected as their efforts to keep it private by trying to ban employees from from posting pictures on social media will eventually fail. What is this "right" that they have otherwise?

    If open-maps are making something that benefits people then why shouldn't they make a profit from it. If that's immoral to you then your first port of call should be to the owners of Boards,ie ltd as they are making money off the back of you too. Or what about Meta, they have algorithms that can box you off as a type of person, your age, sex, ethnicity, what you work at, how much you earn by the time you have hit the like button 60 times.

    Do you have some morality meter to reference?



  • Registered Users Posts: 9,190 ✭✭✭ Say my name


    And another thing numerous posters have posted that they'd have no objection in the grey boxes being labelled as agricultural buildings myself included.

    The objection is the distinct labelling of each individual box into it's exact use.

    Those boxes can be labelled falsely as well but the main objection is the breaking down of each building and what particular purpose it's for.

    The generic labelling of agricultural buildings was mentioned to contributers of osm but they didn't seem to be interested in that. Why?

    Because they want to know more.

    Generic labelling won't increase usage of open street map and people won't pay for that info.

    They won't allow a swimming pool behind someone's house be labelled but will allow distinction as to where the most valuable items are stored in a business premises.

    That shows the ideological naive thinking of a Web based business owner with a swimming pool out the back.



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,350 ✭✭✭ emaherx


    Not in the slightest, just wondering where you interest lies? But won't loose sleep over either.

    You may well know more about privacy than me, good for you, I'm not even sure that fact is relevant or if it was meant to be some kind of counter argument. I'm simply having a discussion anyone is welcome to join in.



  • Registered Users Posts: 85 ✭✭ Fluppen


    I'm definitely not a fan of this type of mapping or any of the satellite imagery on private property. I happen to live on a farm down a long lane and I enjoyed the fact that even relatively local people assumed that my lane was simply a field access. It made the yard very quiet and meant I had no uninvited visitors.

    Now people can simply look online and see what there is that might be worth stealing. I feel like groups such as open maps should be discouraged from labeling buildings. It even feels invasive that some random volunteer is mapping my house and sheds which are not visible from the road.

    I have no idea around the legal issues, I just know that it makes me feel less safe.



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,350 ✭✭✭ emaherx


    Maybe reread the posts, I don't believe there are actually any legal claims made about PII or specific broken laws.

    The discussion topic is about "unnecessary public listing of farm buildings"

    This is not a legal forum, it is F&F and we are discussing the above along with the associated privacy and security concerns relating to buildings on our farms. If you understand privacy better than me you would surely know that privacy laws in Ireland are not always particularly clear, so I feel it is OK to mention privacy without being completely versed in privacy law. While PII and Data Protection are more clearly defined in law, I don't believe they have been discussed or are actually relevant in this particular discussion. They may have been mistakenly mentioned in the previous thread but I'm Ok with admitting that mistake.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 186 ✭✭ Luttrell1975


    My interest in when people start talking about privacy rules that don't exist.

    Yes, you went with  "unnecessary public listing of farm buildings" - but you were asked to do one that was legal. The law is black and white, there are no grey areas as said by one poster here.

    What are you actually now saying(!), are you saying that the law is insufficient to cover the concerns of some of people here who want nothing mapped on their farm? If you did then you are correct.



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,350 ✭✭✭ emaherx


    That's fair enough, I can accept where you are coming from.


    No idea what you are trying to say here? Are you annoyed I didn't start a different thread that better suits your argument? I may have been asked to start a more legal one by another poster but I didn't, I'm pretty sure I didn't have to.


    As for privacy law it is far from black and white the more I look into it the grayer it looks , there has been reports commissioned on that very fact in several European Countries including Ireland. Dose the fact that it's complicated invalidate us discussing it or is it that you'd rather just laugh at a bunch of dumb farmers misquoting data protection laws in place if privacy law? At least I'm looking into what is concerning me and willing to admit where I've been mistaken previously but I still don't believe any of that takes from my original post.


    At the end of the day we are discussing a real issue that concerns us, we can still discuss it whether or not the law is on our sides, as far as I am aware discussion on the topic is allowed either way.



  • Registered Users Posts: 310 ✭✭ The Rabbi


    The salesmen with the next wonder mineral or suppliment that find out you live down there are the nusance.



  • Registered Users Posts: 186 ✭✭ Luttrell1975


    I don't mean to be harsh, so take this in the spirit is meant if you want me to reply. You were asked to do a legal thread, so that the privacy laws could be discussed in how they apply to maps. YOU, (not me), CHOSE, to do a thread that suited YOUR purpose. There are no grey areas in the laws. Which laws have grey areas, do tell? That's a kop-out.

    I read everything you wrote, and while you are not the least well informed you do come from the same place as some of the other posters here who think that your cowsheds and slurry silos bear some kind of heightened crime risk if placed on a map. Open Street Maps gave you answers about what they do. You repeatedly asking what its all for is nothing more than pretending there is PII processing here, because that is the only law where the purpose of holding data can be queried. When will you accept this?

    I like the person who said it was a moral thing. At least that person is willing to be realistic and honest and admit they are shaky ground.



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,350 ✭✭✭ emaherx


    Yes, asked by another poster, not a divine power, they are free to start threads in legal discussion too. So yes ME not YOU decided to open this thread for MY purposes, which was simply raising awareness on something I felt was an issue (this is how discussion boards work 😉). I know what being the OP entails, I've opened threads before. But I'm unsure as to why this in particular bothers you at such a personal level.

    Truthfully, I think you absolutely do mean to sound harsh, your very first post in the other thread was literally you laughing at us, as you thought we were a bunch of luddites, which couldn't actually be further from the truth.

    You have been the only person in this thread to bring up the topic of PII and claim to have superior knowledge of privacy, but have done little to demonstrate it, except constantly trying to make it a GDPR topic, I am guessing you want to test the knowledge you've gained from a 5 min work related GDPR slideshow presentation.

    I have simply raised an issue of concern with my fellow farmers and engaged in a conversation with the organisation in question. I have not sought any legal advice here or elsewhere. I believe there are privacy and potentially security issues, but you are right I have no legal training or qualification, I doubt many here have including yourself.

    As for Legal grey area around privacy. Report is from 2006, perhaps much has changed since then including the introduction of GDPR, but it demonstrates how the simple interpretation of the term privacy is a legal headache.


    While the Constitution has been held to provide a personal right of privacy, the nature and extent of the remedies derived from that guarantee are uncertain. An analysis of the constitutional jurisprudence demonstrates not merely an inherent, and we believe largely unavoidable, lack of clarity as to definition and the precise application of the general entitlement to privacy in particular circumstances, but the dimensions of the constitutional cause of action are also unclear in many other important respects, particularly in relation the considerations which the Courts will determine justify what might otherwise be considered an invasion of privacy. While it is likely that the Courts will, if and when called upon so to do, facilitate remedies for violations of privacy that are proportionate and effective, by definition they can only do this on a case by case basis.


    Anyway, I'll be completely ignoring you from now on as you seem to be getting a little too personal.



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 12,250 Mod ✭✭✭✭ blue5000


    Mod note; Just going to park this one until the mod team have a chat about it. We all seem to be getting too deep into this. Hopefully we'll have it up and running again in 24 hours. PM me if you've anything further to add, just bear in mind I'm not a barrister, just a farmer.

    If the seat's wet, sit on yer hat, a cool head is better than a wet ar5e.



  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 8,763 Mod ✭✭✭✭ greysides


    Mod:

    This is the first paragraph in the first post:

    I am starting this thread to raise awareness of individuals who may take it upon themselves to map our properties in great detail on wiki style maps such as OpenStreetMap.org .

    THAT is the purpose of this thread, awareness, and comment on the unrealised mapping of private property. The argument over the legalities of privacy are monopolising and detracting from the purpose of this thread. That is to stop now.

    Thread reopened.

    The aim of argument, or of discussion, should not be victory, but progress. Joseph Joubert

    The ultimate purpose of debate is not to produce consensus. It's to promote critical thinking.

    Adam Grant



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,350 ✭✭✭ emaherx


    I have intentionally posted this as a discussion in the farming section and not the legal advice forum, as I am not making any legal claims or seeking legal advice, I am just raising my concerns about the issue and sharing my contact experience with the organisation in question. As there is currently no intention to make an official complaint or take any legal action.

    I have made contact with OpenStreetMap Ireland which claims to have its rules governed by the consensus of its community members, therefore I believe that we can convey some of our concerns directly to them. Questions like "why our building usage would need to be mapped" from us a community of online farmers to them a community of online mappers doesn't need to imply any breach of Data Protection laws, but is certainly a question that I have posed to them and that I believe they should ask themselves. If this is a question that they find they are unable to answer themselves, then it may help to persuade them that they really don't need any labels to identify farm building usage. Given that by their own admission their document in guiding their community members on the labelling of such structures is currently a work in progress now would probably a good time for people to politely make contact and voice their own concerns.


    This is a direct quote from the last mail I have received from OpenStreetMap Ireland.

    "But if there is a legitimate concern about the level of tagging it is a conversation we can have with the wider OpenStreetMap community in Ireland as well."

    As an aside and in the interest of fairness, I'd like to reiterate that I don't generally have any issue with OpenStreetMap and I'd even commend them in work they have accomplished in projects such as https://www.townlands.ie/



  • Registered Users Posts: 186 ✭✭ Luttrell1975



    Since the moderator has forbidden discussion of laws (no harm because I wasn't going to go through them all in this thread), and you are mentioning that GDPR does not arise (well done), then the entire narrative you construct where you ask a data controller to justify why they have the data is also gone. You already got responses which sound very reasonable. It is not yours or anyone's place to demand responses, or to target an email campaign at any organisation or individual, whether it is a commercial or volunteer based.

    Last thing. Its a very bad idea to tell someone their knowledge is based on powerpoint they looked at one weekend. Seriously.



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,350 ✭✭✭ emaherx


    On this point, I will apologise, it was a cheap shot and beneath me. It is not nice to belittle the knowledge of others and makes for poor argument.

    Last thing. Its a very bad idea to tell someone their knowledge is based on powerpoint they looked at one weekend. Seriously.


    I have just raised some of our concerns with the organisation in question without implying any legal issue one way or the other. I have read their responses and sought further information, to which they have replied again and even said they'd consider the issue with their community if there is legitimate concern about the level of tagging. A few polite e-mails dose not constitute an attack, I find clairvoyance a poor method of conveying concern. There were no demands made anywhere within the mails I sent, only a point of view shared and I credit them with some of the answers. If it was a simple as question asked and answered there would be no such thing as discussion.

    But seriously if you'd like to discuss the usefulness or not of tagging our buildings with a guessed usage purpose I'd love to hear it? A good answer in showing it is useful could help change our minds on the issue, conversely not having a useful purpose might persuade a community of mappers that it is not worth upsetting others just to label something because it is there, this has been my narrative since the very beginning of the thread and remains unchanged.



  • Registered Users Posts: 186 ✭✭ Luttrell1975


    Thank you, I will leave the rest of the sentence neutral in that case, and you will fill in the blanks with what I am thanking you for.

    When I said demands I was assuming a tone you might hold, rather than the absolute meaning for the content. For this I apologise, it wasn't the right word to use. But asking members of a message board to send their own mails to a volunteer organisation is ramping up what your outstanding concerns, when all you had to do was follow up and post your replies.

    I will leave the thread to you to work out why this is a "legitimate" concern. I do not accept that marking details on a map causes crime, nor does it touch privacy. Not when every satellite image and commercial map available tells you exactly the same thing.



  • Registered Users Posts: 849 ✭✭✭ Easten


    Very few contributors to this thread, as I pointed out earlier the Genie is already out of the lamp with regard to this type of stuff which covers a far wider subject area.

    Listen I think you were correct when you said this is a probe to ad hominem. Worse than that most other threads can grow and cover many side topics, instead this one is locked to a personal crusade against Openstreetmap.

    It's now yet another blocking sticky at the top of one of the few forms on Boards that is still active after the so called "upgrade".



  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 8,763 Mod ✭✭✭✭ greysides


    I think I'll tackle a couple of the points here and then go and check out the Latin phrase, so with my mod hat on...

    Sometimes it's fitting for threads to meander off-topic - non-serious threads, threads where the new direction is helpful, threads whose original purpose is complete and the diversion is of no consequence, etc.

    By and large here, we don't go too struck on keeping threads on-topic as befits a small community that, I wager, is more tight-knit than most of the others on Boards.

    The view of the moderators in this instance is that most farmers would be unaware of mapping and therefore labelling of their property could be happening without their consent. Secondly, we can see the obvious security and privacy concerns it throws up and wish to give a heads-up to those we can.

    That brings me to the second point. It was me that stickied the thread for the reasons above. I was not asked to do it. I moved another stickied thread elsewhere to make space so the number of stickied threads hasn't increased. In time, the thread will cut loose.

    The aim of argument, or of discussion, should not be victory, but progress. Joseph Joubert

    The ultimate purpose of debate is not to produce consensus. It's to promote critical thinking.

    Adam Grant



  • Registered Users Posts: 186 ✭✭ Luttrell1975


    😄 just to point out this - this is the second thread devoted to emaherx's take on the issue. There could have been just one. Despite many posts suggesting there are legal issues (which are not off-topic as they refer to the issue), this aspect got shut down and only you know the reason for that.



  • Registered Users Posts: 849 ✭✭✭ Easten


    Farmers know more about mapping then the general public. You can be sure that ever farmer knows with accuracy the map of their farm. Farmers are working with maps with over 3 decades now. Very naïve and small minded of Moderators to convey a picture of ignorant farmers like that.

    Now we have a Moderator reintroducing the concept of consent to mapping, and also the issue of privacy. As was said earlier there is no legal requirement to have consent. The question of privacy was also challenged from a legal point of view, the Op chose not to discuss as he did not see it as relevant or should be part of the discussion.

    What you are doing now greysides is spreading misinformation.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 10,221 ✭✭✭✭ Base price


    Re: "Not when every satellite image and commercial map available tells you exactly the same thing.

    Please advise where satellite images/commercial maps currently label buildings/structures on private property in Ireland- as far as I know the only instances of this are historical sites/monuments?



  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 8,763 Mod ✭✭✭✭ greysides


    just to point out this - this is the second thread devoted to emaherx's take on the issue. There could have been just one. Despite many posts suggesting there are legal issues (which are not off-topic as they refer to the issue), this aspect got shut down and only you know the reason for that.

    Correct about emaherx. His thread, his take. Feel free to start one devoted to your take on it.

    Legal issues... I feel there are and others may feel likewise... but emaherx doesn't want to further the discussion along those lines.

    The aim of argument, or of discussion, should not be victory, but progress. Joseph Joubert

    The ultimate purpose of debate is not to produce consensus. It's to promote critical thinking.

    Adam Grant



  • Registered Users Posts: 849 ✭✭✭ Easten


    In Ireland the OSI provide maps with resolution and aerial imagery accurate 30cm2 resolution, and can come complete with detailed Metadata (technical data about the imagery) which allows anyone to know what buildings/structures are. That's just in Ireland, online there are several Openstreetmap variants. The dept of Agriculture has detailed maps of all agricultural holdings, those same maps are available to anyone by requesting through the freedom of Information Act.

    I think what the likes of OpenStreetMap is doing is just using public knowledge and resources to build a complete map of what is already available through fragmented sources



  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 8,763 Mod ✭✭✭✭ greysides


    Farmers know more about mapping then the general public. You can be sure that ever farmer knows with accuracy the map of their farm. Farmers are working with maps with over 3 decades now. Very naïve and small minded of Moderators to convey a picture of ignorant farmers like that.

    The issue is not with mapping but unnecessarily detailed labelling of an online map that many may be not be aware of.

    Calling moderators "very naïve and small minded", is that not an ad hominem argument?


    Now, privacy/consent/etc. I gave you the reasons why this thread was originally stickied. We seem to have moved on past that, but they remain the reasons.

    **** Transmission ends ****

    The aim of argument, or of discussion, should not be victory, but progress. Joseph Joubert

    The ultimate purpose of debate is not to produce consensus. It's to promote critical thinking.

    Adam Grant



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,350 ✭✭✭ emaherx


    Very much they are doing just that, I have even commended them on some of the work they have done, there is however a point where it simply becomes too much. They even acknowledge this fact themselves and have a work in progress procedural document in place.



  • Registered Users Posts: 849 ✭✭✭ Easten


    greysides, yes emarhex has chosen not to have discussion with regard to any legal or privacy issue, fine no problem, but it is you who have gone and spread misinformation with regard to consent to labelling of property. There is no law which requires a person to get consent of a property owner or any other member of the public to put a label on a Map.

    Maybe there should be a law, maybe not as it could infringe on the persons freedom of speech.



  • Registered Users Posts: 10,221 ✭✭✭✭ Base price



    OSI is a Government mandated body that is covered by GDPR.

    With regards to "technical data about imagery" that is fudging the issue and imo pure bolloxology. I don't care about how many pixels per square cm were used or whatever.

    DAFM, Insurance companies and possibly Dept of Environment had knowledge of the usage of buildings on our private land. I would like to see proof that any of these entities provide such detailed information, as well you guessed it they are covered by GDPR.

    IMO what OpenSnooperMap.org (see what I did just there) are doing, is inviting random individuals to dismiss the right of Irish farmers to enjoy our private property.

    I've an awful feeling that the fookin right to roam brigade and animal right activists are big into it.



  • Registered Users Posts: 849 ✭✭✭ Easten


    GDPR only applies to personal data not buildings, properties or landscape.

    It is you who is fudging the issue.



  • Registered Users Posts: 10,221 ✭✭✭✭ Base price


    You obviously didn't read my post correctly or chose not too, anyway as I clearly explained it but here it is again - DAFM, Insurance companies and possibly Dept of Environment had knowledge of the usage of buildings on our private land. I would like to see proof that any of these entities provide such detailed information, as well you guessed it they are covered by GDPR.



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 8,763 Mod ✭✭✭✭ greysides


    The view of the moderators in this instance is that most farmers would be unaware of mapping and therefore labelling of their property could be happening without their consent. Secondly, we can see the obvious security and privacy concerns it throws up and wish to give a heads-up to those we can.

    I think this is the word you object to. I should probably have used "knowledge". It would have fitted better in context anyway.


    My personal opinion is that there should be consent/agreement /acquiescence/knowledge ... whatever.

    Whether its's OSM, OSI, DAFM or whoever, farmers should be aware/made aware this is happening.

    In a world of GDPR and continually ticking cookie permissions, it's hard to believe this is acceptable.

    The aim of argument, or of discussion, should not be victory, but progress. Joseph Joubert

    The ultimate purpose of debate is not to produce consensus. It's to promote critical thinking.

    Adam Grant



This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement