Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Social and Political Dimensions of the OpenStreetMap Project: Towards a Critical Geographical Research Agenda

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
OpenStreetMap in GIScience

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Geoinformation and Cartography ((LNGC))

Abstract

Critical cartographic scholarship has demonstrated that maps (and geoinformation in general) can never be neutral or objective: maps are always embedded in specific social contexts of production and use and thus unavoidably reproduce social conventions and hierarchies. Furthermore, it has been argued that maps also (re)produce certain geographies and thus social realities. This argument shifts attention to the constitutive effects of maps and the ways in which they make the world. Within the discussion on neogeography and volunteered geographic information, it has been argued that crowd sourcing offers a radical alternative to conventional ways of map making, challenging the hegemony of official and commercial cartographies. In this view, crowd-sourced Web 2.0-mapping projects such as OpenStreetMap (OSM) might begin to offer a forum for different voices, mapping new things, enabling new ways of living. In our contribution, we frame a research agenda that draws upon critical cartography but widens the scope of analysis to the assemblages of practices, actors, technologies, and norms at work: an agenda which is inspired by the “critical GIS”-literature, to take the specific social contexts and effects of technologies into account, but which deploys a processual view of mapping. We recognize that a fundamental transition in mapping is taking place, and that OSM may well be of central importance in this process. However, we stress that social conventions, political hegemonies, unequal economic and technical resources etc. do not fade away with crowdsourced Web 2.0 projects, but rather transform themselves and impact upon mapping practices. Together these examples suggest that research into OSM might usefully reflect more critically on the contexts in which new geographic knowledge is being assembled.

Part of this paper has been written while Georg Glasze was a visiting researcher at the Oxford Internet Institute (OII) in 2014. We want to thank Steve Chilton (London), Christian Bittner, Tim Elrick (both Erlangen), various colleagues from the OII and the three anonymous referees for their advices on aspects of this paper.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Data_working_group/Disputes (23.07.2014).

  2. 2.

    See for example the “How Did You Contribute to OpenStreetMap tool” available at http://hdyc.neis-one.org/ deploys charting and tabulation and mapping to document individual user name participation in the project, and the user diaries attached to the site.

  3. 3.

    As an example the Wiki suggests to classify “druse” as a denomination of “religion = muslim”—a classification which is contested for example by many Druze living in Israel who see themselves not as Muslims but as a proper religious group.

  4. 4.

    See for example the broad discussion on places of worship in OSM triggered by the debate on the Pastafarians (https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2010-January/046620.html; 10.07.2014).

  5. 5.

    See for example: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Rendering-places-of-worship-in-Mapnik-td5379077.html (10.07.2010).

  6. 6.

    The governmental database contains 124 places of worship—all Christian. OSM contains 119, the biggest part with 106 being qualified as Christian (mostly protestant and catholic), 8 unknown, 2 other, 2 Muslim, and 1 Jewish.

  7. 7.

    See: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Map_Features (20.07.2014).

  8. 8.

    The tagging structure with its separation of use (e.g. amenity = place of worship > religion = *) and building = * in principle enables the separation of use and physical structure and thus is more sophisticated than many tagging schemes in state-based topographic cartography.

References

  • Ballatore A (2014) Defacing the map: cartographic vandalism in the digital commons. Cartographic J 5:1–24

    Google Scholar 

  • Bittner C (2014) Reproduktion sozialräumlicher Differenzierungen in OpenStreetMap: das Beispiel Jerusalems. Kartographische Nachrichten 64(3):136–144

    Google Scholar 

  • Bittner C, Glasze G, Turk C (2013) Tracing contingencies: analyzing the political in assemblages of web 2.0 cartographies. GeoJournal 78:935–948. doi:10.1007/s10708-013-9488-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Budhathoki N (2010) Participant’s motivations to contribute geographic information in an online community. Dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

    Google Scholar 

  • Budhathoki NR, Haythornthwaite C (2013) Motivation for open collaboration crowd and community models and the case of OpenStreetMap. Am Behav Sci 57(5):548–575

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burns R (2014) Moments of closure in the knowledge politics of digital humanitarianism. Geoforum 53:51–62. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2014.02.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caquard S (2014) Cartography II: collective cartographies in the social media era. Prog Hum Geogr 38(1):141–150. doi:10.1177/0309132513514005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chilton S (2011) OS and OpenStreetMap. Sheetlines 91:20–27

    Google Scholar 

  • Crampton JW, Graham M, Poorthuis A, Shelton T, Stephens M, Wilson MW, Zook M (2013) Beyond the geotag: situating ‘big data’ and leveraging the potential of the geoweb. Cartography Geogr Inf Sci 40(2):130–139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dalton CM (2013) Sovereigns, Spooks, and Hackers: an early history of google geo services and map mashups. Cartographica Int J Geogr Inf Geovisualization 48(4):261–274. doi:10.3138/carto.48.4.1621

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeLyser D, Sui D (2012) Crossing the qualitative-quantitative chasm I: hybrid geographies, the spatial turn, and volunteered geographic information (VGI). Prog Hum Geogr 36(1):111–124

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dodge M, Kitchin R (2013) Crowdsourced cartography: mapping experience and knowledge. Environ Plann A 45(1):19–36. doi:10.1068/a44484

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dodge M, Kitchin R, Perkins C (eds) (2009a) Rethinking maps. New frontiers in cartographic theory. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Dodge M, Perkins C, Kitchin R (2009b) Mapping modes, methods and moments: a manifesto for map studies. In: Dodge M, Kitchin R, Perkins C (eds) Rethinking maps. New frontiers in cartographic theory. Routledge, London, pp 311–341

    Google Scholar 

  • Eckert J (2010) Tropes 2.0: mobilization in OpenStreet-Map. Unpublished Master thesis, University of Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Edney MH (1993) Cartography without progress: reinterpreting the nature and historical development of mapmaking. Cartographica Int J Geogr Inf Geovisualization 30(2):54–68. doi:10.3138/D13V-8318-8632-18K6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elrick T (2014) Sozialwissenschaftliche tag-Analyse mit OpenStreetMap-Daten am Beispiel religiöser Andachtsstätten in Deutschland. Kartographische Nachrichten 64(3):152–156

    Google Scholar 

  • Elwood S (2010a) Geographic information science: emerging research on the societal implications of the geospatial web. Prog Hum Geogr 34(3):349–357

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elwood S (2010b) Mixed methods: thinking, doing, and asking in multiple ways. In: DeLyser D (ed) The SAGE handbook of qualitative geography. ausgewählte Kapitel, Sage, Los Angeles pp 94–113

    Google Scholar 

  • Elwood S (2011) Geographic information science: visualization, visual methods, and the geoweb. Prog Hum Geogr 35(3):401–408. doi:10.1177/0309132510374250

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elwood S, Leszczynski A (2012) New spatial media, new knowledge politics. Trans Inst British Geogr. doi:10.1111/j.1475-5661.2012.00543.x

    Google Scholar 

  • Elwood S, Goodchild MF, Sui D (2013) Prospects for VGI research and the emerging fourth paradigm. In: Sui D, Elwood S, Goodchild MF (eds) Crowdsourcing geographic knowledge. Volunteered geographic information (VGI) in theory and practice. Springer, New York, pp 361–375

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerlach J (2014) Lines, contours and legends: coordinates for vernacular mapping. Prog Hum Geogr 38(1):22–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glasze G (2009) Kritische Kartographie. Geographische Zeitschrift 97(4):181–191

    Google Scholar 

  • Glasze G (2014) Sozialwissenschaftliche Kartographie-. GIS- und Geoweb-Forschung. Kartographische Nachrichten 64(3):123–129

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodchild MF (2007) Citizens as sensors: the world of volunteered geography. GeoJournal 69:211–221

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodchild M (2009) First law of geography. In: Kitchin R, Thrift N (eds) International encyclopedia of human geography. Elsevier, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Graham M (2009) Neogeography and the palimpsests of place: web 2.0 and the construction of a virtual earth. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, pp 1–15 (online)

    Google Scholar 

  • Haklay M (2010) How good is volunteered geographical information? a comparative study of OpenStreetMap and ordnance survey datasets. Env Plann B 37(4):682–703

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haklay M (2013) Neogeography and the delusion of democratisation. Env Plann A 45(1):55–69. doi:10.1068/a45184

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haklay M, Singleton A, Parker C (2008) Web mapping 2.0: the neogeography of the GeoWeb. Geogr Compass 2(6):2011–2039

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harley JB (1988) Maps, knowledge and power. In: Cosgrove D, Daniels S (eds) The iconography of landscape: essays on the symbolic representation, design and use of past environments, vol 9. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 277–312

    Google Scholar 

  • Harley JB (1989) Deconstructing the map. Cartographica 26(2):1–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris LM, Harrower M (2006) Introduction. Critical interventions and lingering concerns: critical cartography/GISci, social theory, and alternative possible futures. ACME Int E-Journal Crit Geographies 4(1):1–10

    Google Scholar 

  • Harvey F, Kwan M, Pavlovskaya M (2005) Introduction: critical GIS. Cartographica 40(4):1–3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hristova D, Quattrone G, Mashhadi A, Capra L (2013) The life of the party: impact of social mapping on OpenStreetMap. In: Proceedings of the AAAI international conference on weblogs and social media

    Google Scholar 

  • Kent AJ, Vujakovic P (2009) Stylistic diversity in European State 1:50,000 topographic maps. Geogr J 46(3):179–213

    Google Scholar 

  • Kremer D, Stein K (2014) Ein Analyseansatz für Nutzerverhalten auf Basis von OSM-Daten. User analysis methods for OSM. Kartographische Nachrichten 64(3):144–152

    Google Scholar 

  • Kwan M, Schwanen T (2009) Quantitative revolution 2: the critical (Re)turn. Prof Geogr 61(3):284–291

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Latour B (1986) The powers of association. In: Law J (ed) Power, action and belief. A new sociology of knowledge?. Routledge and Kegan Paul, Boston, pp 264–280

    Google Scholar 

  • Leszczynski A, Elwood S (2014) Feminist geographies of new spatial media. Can Geogr, pp 1–17. doi: 10.1111/cag.12093

  • Lin YW (2011) A qualitative enquiry into OpenStreetMap making. New Rev Hypermedia Multimedia 17(1):53–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lovink G, Tkacz N (eds) (2011) A wikipedia reader critical point of view INC reader, vol 7. Institute of Network Cultures, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • Mooney P, Corcoran P (2013) Analysis of interaction and co-editing patterns amongst OpenStreetMap contributors. Trans GIS:n/a. doi:10.1111/tgis.12051

    Google Scholar 

  • Neis P, Zielstra D (2014) Recent developments and future trends in volunteered geographic information research: the case of OpenStreetMap. Future Internet 6(1):76–106. doi:10.3390/fi6010076

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neis P, Zipf A (2012) Analyzing the contributor activity of a volunteered geographic information project—the case of OpenStreetMap. IJGI 1(2):146–165. doi:10.3390/ijgi1020146

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Reilly T (2005) What is web 2.0. http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html

  • OpenStreetMap Foundation (2013) OpenStreetMap foundation 2011. http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Main_Page

  • O’Sullivan D (2006) Geographical information science: critical GIS. Prog Hum Geogr 30(6):783–791

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pavlovskaya M (2006) Theorizing with GIS: a tool for critical geographies? Env Plann A 38(11):2003–2020

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perkins C (2013) Plotting practices and politics: (im)mutable narratives in OpenStreetMap. Trans Inst Br Geogr:n/a. doi:10.1111/tran.12022

    Google Scholar 

  • Perkins C (2014) Plotting practices and politics: (im)mutable narratives in OpenStreetMap. Trans Inst Br Geogr 39(2):304–317. doi:10.1111/tran.12022

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perkins C, Dodge M (2008) The potential of user-generated cartography: a case study of the OpenStreetMap project and mapchester mapping party. NW Geogr 8(1):19–32

    Google Scholar 

  • Pickles J (1992) Texts, hermeneutics and propaganda maps. In: Barnes TJ, Duncan J (eds) Writing worlds discourse. Text and metaphor in the representation of landscape. Routledge, London, pp 193–230

    Google Scholar 

  • Pickles J (1995) Ground truth: the social implications of geographic information systems, mappings, vol 1. Guilford, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Pickles J (2004) A history of spaces: cartographic reason, mapping, and the geo-coded world. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramm F (2012) What we can learn from wikipedia. http://osm.gryph.de/2012/04/learn-from-wikipedia/#more-95

  • Ramm F (2013) Wer ist der Boss bei OpenStreetMap? http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FOSSGIS_2013/Videomitschnitte

  • Ramm F, Topf J (2010) Open Street Map. Die freie Weltkarte nutzen und mitgestalten, 3rd edn. Lehmanns Media, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt T (2004) Religion, Raum und Konflikt. Lokale Konflikte um Moscheen in Deutschland. Das Beispiel Duisburg. Berichte zur deutschen Landeskunde 78(2):193–212

    Google Scholar 

  • Schuurman N (2000) Trouble in the heartland: GIS and its critics in the 1990s. Prog Hum Geogr 24(4):569–590

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schuurman N (2009) Critical GIS. In: Kitchin R, Thrift N (eds) International encyclopedia of humang geography, vol 2. Elsevier, Oxford, pp 363–368

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Steinmann R, Häusler E, Klettner S, Schmidt M, Lin Y (2013) Gender dimensions in UGC and VGI—a desk-based study. AGIT 2013, Salzburg

    Google Scholar 

  • Stephens M (2013) Gender and the GeoWeb: divisions in the production of user-generated cartographic information. GeoJournal 78(6):981–996. doi:10.1007/s10708-013-9492-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verhoeff N (2012) Mobile screens. The visual regime of navigation. Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Weber P, Jones CE (2011) Usability of editors: what to improve. In: Schmidt M, Gartner G (eds) Proceedings of the 1st European state of the map conference, Wien, pp 14–33

    Google Scholar 

  • Wroclawski (2014) Edit wars in OpenStreetMap. http://blog.emacsen.net/blog/2014/01/17/edit-wars-in-openstreetmap/ 23 July 2014

  • Zook MA, Graham M, Shelton T, Gorman S (2010) Volunteered geographic information and crowdsourcing disaster relief: a case study of the Haitian Earthquake. World Med Health Policy 2(2):7. doi:10.2202/1948-4682.1069

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Geography, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), 91054, Erlangen, Germany

    Georg Glasze

  2. School of Environment, Education and Development (Geography), The University of Manchester, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK

    Chris Perkins

Authors
  1. Georg Glasze
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Chris Perkins
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Georg Glasze .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. GIScience research group, Institute of Geography, Heidelberg, Germany

    Jamal Jokar Arsanjani

  2. Geography, Institute of Geography, Heidelberg, Germany

    Alexander Zipf

  3. Department of Computer Science, Maynooth University, Maynooth Co Kildare, Kildare, Ireland

    Peter Mooney

  4. Department of Human Geography and Spatial Planning, Faculty of Geosciences, Utrecht, The Netherlands

    Marco Helbich

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Glasze, G., Perkins, C. (2015). Social and Political Dimensions of the OpenStreetMap Project: Towards a Critical Geographical Research Agenda. In: Jokar Arsanjani, J., Zipf, A., Mooney, P., Helbich, M. (eds) OpenStreetMap in GIScience. Lecture Notes in Geoinformation and Cartography. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-14280-7_8

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation