Proposal:Surveillance camera

The Feature Page for the approved proposal Surveillance is located at Tag:man made=surveillance

Surveillance
Proposal status:	Approved (active)
Proposed by:	Fnord, and many more
Tagging:	man_made=surveillance Data item
Statistics:
Rendered as:
Draft started:
Proposed on:	2006-12-24
RFC start:	2008-05-27
Vote start:	2008-07-04
Vote end:	2008-07-22

This Item marks a surveillance-camera. This can be used to illustrate the omnipresence of Big Brother. See also Björn von Thülen's page: http://www.guymon.de/

See also: Proposed_features/Key:Surveillance

Proposed Icon:

<svg:symbol 
  id="surveillance"
  viewBox="0 0 40 40"
  stroke="none"
  fill-opacity="1">
    <svg:rect fill="black" width="40" height="40" x="0" y="0" rx="7.5" ry="7.5" />
    <svg:path fill="white" d="M 9.75,7.75 L 4.25,18.75 L 22.25,27.25 L 33.25,19.75 L 9.75,7.75 z " />
    <svg:path fill="white" d="M 32.25,21.25 L 28.25,29.25 L 30.25,30.25 L 34.25,22.25 L 32.25,21.25 z " />
    <svg:path fill="white" d="M 31.25,21.75 L 25.25,26.25 L 28.25,27.75 L 31.25,21.75 z " />
    <svg:path fill="white" d="M 18.75,0 L 18.75,11.25 L 21.25,12.5 L 21.25,0 L 18.75,0 z " />
</svg:symbol>

Comments

How would this work in practice? We have some areas that are covered in cameras - the whole map would be full.. Secretlondon 18:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I would tag nodes where cameras are but I would simply not render them by default, maybe as overlay-layer --Jannis 02:04, 18 May 2007 (BST)

You'd need an area feature I guess. Or just tag the "London" town node as "surveillance=1984". ;-) -- Relet 09:53, 13 June 2007 (BST)

I am for having this key on nodes, ways and areas. The "description"-tag can include details if anyone cares. In fact, I'll add all the cameras observing public places here right away. --MarcusWolschon 11:57, 1 October 2007 (BST)

I would strongly argue to use an icon according to the German DIN 33450 standard. It is much clearer in structure and thus scales better to smaller resolutions. --Kde 14:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

---

I think it is an excellent idea to record the location of these things but I would not want to see them marked on the public maps - there are just too many in some places.

As for the information recorded: I think they should be single nodes only and not ways or areas keys. The reason for this is that a camera's range is limited only by the brightness of the image source and line of sight. And when we talk about the coverage of theses things we are implying a certain level of sensitivity both in light levels and resolution (e.g. A camera can record the presence of a person at a large distance but resolve the face only at a shorter distance). There's also the fact that coverage is sensitive to environmental conditions.

So I think that knowledge of the camera's properties (mobility, sensitivity, direction, field of view, angular resolution, blah...) could be recorded. From this, context-specific coverage can be generated. Obviously this is a lot of technical info. I suspect people who are really motivated in this area will care enough to add this level of detail. For the rest, simpler tags, perhaps just a 'size' or type category and a compass direction would be enough to give coverage hints. --Andrew T 14:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Additional information such as field of view are often not known for surveillance cameras but should be possible to include. For the coverage angle, values up to 360 degrees should be possible. As for the coverage distance: This is a subjective value and should not be included, in other words, only objective technical properties should be included. I would also suggest to include information on the operator of the camera (at least: private / government / unknown), perhaps even with the possibility to add contact information. --Kde 15:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Some of the cameras (often those looking over some piece of highway in cities, or cameras in mountains, relaying the view to landscape or some skiing slope) have even their output mirrored on the web (though usually in some manner like 1 picture per 30 secs ...) so anybody can look there - then perhaps those cameras with website=... tag could even show up by default, allowing people to actually look to live camera feed from the place they are loking at in the map :) --Bilbo 19:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this tag. I think that it could be applied to both nodes and ways (ie. roads), the use of a 'URL' tag would be helpful in general to online slippy maps only when a click can redirect. For Alberta there are quite a few cameras covering rural routes which help with route planning (strangely they follow the path of government funded optical fibre) see http://www.ama.ab.ca/road_report/camera/camera_station_main.htm --Mungewell 20:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Bilbo's suggestion of a website=... tag, but perhaps url=... would be better? Also, I agree with Andrew T that there is a lot of information that could be recorded. The projects I've seen (NYC Surveillance Camera Project and the New York Surveillance Camera Players) generally record the type of camera (whether it's fixed, has limited panning, or is a dome camera) and, if possible, the owner of the camera (city, federal, private, foreign consulate, etc.) --Alan 20:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

URL discussion on: Proposed_features/External_links. Ojw 14:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Personally I am looking forward to see how bad the surveillance thing already is germany. Using areas to tag high density surveillance places might be useful, but think twice before using it. I think a tagged area must reflect a 100% surveillance coverage. But also just for the records, I want to raise the omnipresent warning "What value does that add to a street map?" and "Whats the purpose?" --Peteos 07:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

For those cameras that offer their stream on the internet and that especially cover some type of street (e.g. [1] for Vienna), it may be of help when one decides which route to choose. -- MapFlea 07:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I dislike the focus on surveillance as a seperate POI. surveillance often could be set as an attribute to buildings, places, pedestrian ways, ... So I really like the alternative proposal about a dedicated surveillance key that can be set to other objects. There are situations where a surveillance cam cannot be specified as a point: banks with 5+ cameras, fuel stations with many cams, movable cams, ... So a general attribute "this object is surveilled" fits this. -- Bwurst 15:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Webcams

Please add Website=http://... if the surveillance cam is published on the internet. --Lulu-Ann 15:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

There's still a discussion on: Proposed_features/External_links whether to use website=*, url:website=* (or uri:website=*). -- MapFlea 07:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Voting

• I approve this proposal. -- Jesuzphreak 17:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. -- SlowRider 17:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. -- Will.i.am 17:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. -- StevenLeRoux 19:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. As there are over 10.000 of these just for London , I think it's stupid --PhilippeP 18:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. -- Koelly 18:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. -- DenisHelfer 18:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. More tags will need to be standarized if the cameras are public (e.g. a tag for the URL where the camera can be seen) Ivansanchez 20:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. -- Alan 20:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. -- Inkorrupt 21:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. This tag should also apply to areas, to avoid crowding the map where coverage is dense Gerhard 23:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. -- Astrofreak85 23:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. -- Master 07:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. -- Robx 12:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. -- Marcus 15:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. -- MikeCollinson 15:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. -- Uboot 16:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. -- Hanno 19:18, 5 July 2008 (CET)
• I oppose this proposal. -- otih 16:52, 8 July 2008 (CET) see: Proposed_features/Key:Surveillance
• I approve this proposal. -- Elio 01:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. -- Itschytoo 17:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Klara-schein 18:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Peteos 07:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Xsteadfastx 07:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. -- JocelynDelalande 18:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. -- Hcy 08:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. This proposal does not work as additional tag for buildings or places, see comment -- Bwurst 15:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. But I support Proposed_features/Key:Surveillance -- Colin Marquardt 08:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. But I support Proposed_features/Key:Surveillance --xylome 07:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. Maybe Tag should only be rendered in specialized maps or overlays or detailed resolution and add a relation to an area -- Sendelhorst 16:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal.--Walley 11:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal.--Metehyi --Metehyi 13:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. -- Gps maus 16:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

This proposal has been Approved