Re:OpenStreetMap charts a controversial new direction
by pcthrowaway on Friday February 19, 2021 @04:33PM
(#26198297)
Is this really such a problem? I guess this is my first time hearing of it, but I believe OSM allows you to mark areas where public wifi (or private wifi, in the case of businesses that provide wifi to customers), is available. Wifi access is not a tangible, physical thing (even though of course the physical layer is), but OSM provides a framework to map it because it's tied to a location, and the information might be useful to some people.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:OpenStreetMap charts a controversial new direction
by mpol on Friday February 19, 2021 @04:39PM
(#26198368)
I am not sure what you are replying to, so I assume there is some miscommunication.
I don't know anything about mapping public Wifi access, like in shopping centres.
What I meant is that already some people feel like their city and a 30km radius around it is "their area" and they want to control what and how things get mapped there. It can lead to heated and emotional discussions, we are people after all :) If a big company with lots of human resources would do this, there is hardly any fighting back.
Re:OpenStreetMap charts a controversial new direction
by pcthrowaway on Friday February 19, 2021 @07:17PM
(#26199876)
I was replying to the Pokemon capture points added to OSM being considered vandalism.
Re:OpenStreetMap charts a controversial new direction
by spaethnl on Saturday February 20, 2021 @11:02AM
(#26205097)
I think the issue was that Pokemon Go used certain types of map elements as their Pokemon capture points, e.g., Landmarks, or something. People weren't adding "Pokemon capture points", they were adding non-existent Landmarks so that they could be imported to the game for their own advantage.
Re:OpenStreetMap charts a controversial new direction
by pcthrowaway on Saturday February 20, 2021 @03:21PM
(#26207573)
Ahh, thanks for explaining. That's definitely an abuse of the service