Abstract
AbstractIn its early days, the geodata and mapping project OpenStreetMap (OSM) was widely celebrated for opening up and “democratizing” the production of geographic knowledge. However, critical research highlights that the new socio-technical practices of collaborative mapping often also produce or reproduce patterns of exclusion, not least in the area of relative data density between the Global South and North. These findings notwithstanding, we consider it important to acknowledge the increasing number of contributions of geodata from regions outside the old European core of OSM. This expansion of geodata production in OSM is related to a diversification of OSM actors and socio-technical practices. While OSM has often been described as a crowd-based project bringing together thousands of individual craft mappers, our analysis of OSM metadata indicates new institutional actors are gaining relevance. These developments have not only resulted in new collaborations but also conflicts between local mapping communities and institutional actors. We interpret these processes in two ways. First, the expansion of mapping activities can be viewed as a decolonizing process, whereby quantitative differences in data density between the Global North and South are partly reduced and new groups of local mappers are empowered to produce geographic knowledge. Second, these new developments can also be understood as colonizing processes. The engagement of large commercial actors in OSM raises concerns that the project (and its local mappers) could be used as a new means of data extraction and that in particular new and diverse voices in the OSM community are marginalized by a fixation on economically exploitable, modernistic and universalistic epistemologies. However, this supposedly clear distinction should not obscure the fact that colonizing and decolonizing processes intertwine in complex ways.
Funder
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Geography, Planning and Development
Reference79 articles.
1. Anderson, J. (2016). OpenStreetMap contribution analysis: A research collaboration with Mapbox. Retrieved Mar 12, 2021, from https://mapbox.github.io/osm-analysis-collab/
2. Anderson, J., Sarkar, D., & Palen, L. (2019). Corporate editors in the evolving landscape of OpenStreetMap. IJGI, 8(5), 232. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi8050232
3. Ballatore, A., & Sabbata, S. D. (2020). Los angeles as a digital place: The geographies of user-generated content. Transactions in GIS, 24(4), 880–902. https://doi.org/10.1111/tgis.12600t
4. Barron, C., Neis, P., & Zipf, A. (2014). A comprehensive framework for intrinsic openstreetmap quality analysis. Transactions in GIS, 18(6), 877–895. https://doi.org/10.1111/tgis.12073
5. Bellone, T., Engel-Di Mauro, S., Fiermonte, F., Armano, E., & Quiquivix, L. (2020). Mapping as tacit representations of the colonial gaze. In D. Specht (Ed.), Mapping crisis: Participation, datafication and humanitarianism in the age of digital mapping (pp. 17–38). University of London Press.
Cited by
13 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献