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.
Tag: ethics
Ethics in Cartography
Nat Case writes about the ethics of cartography in Psyche:
You might think there’s not a lot to get moralistic about in the world of mapping. You would be wrong. For decades now, various critiques have been raised about cartography, its history, its current practice, its complicity in the evils of the world, and cartographers’ degree of responsibility. On the one hand, cartographic history in the West is bound up with institutions that created maps to prosecute war, subjugate colonies, extract wealth from the earth regardless of who was already living there, and manage mass social engineering including a large-scale oppression. Maps can also be tools that create individual agency by giving any map-reader a manager’s view of the world. That part tends to be noncontroversial. It’s who we work for and with that causes some people to raise concerns.