This OSM diary entry raises an interesting question: “We generally work under the assumption that ‘the more mapped places, the better.’ But what if the locals don’t consent to being mapped? What if they prefer not to be mapped?” I think it depends. If it’s an argument that publicly accessible streets and addresses, or views visible from publicly accessible streets, shouldn’t be on the map, I’m not necessarily sympathetic. On the other hand, there’s a good argument that not everything that can be mapped—as in, can be identified from aerial imagery—should be available on a consumer-facing mapping application. Should, for example, driveways for private homes be mapped? What about a swimming pool or playhouse in the backyard? The more detail we add, the more uncomfortable we risk making people. If there’s a line between useful and creepy, we should be careful not to get too close to it, and certainly never cross it.