People used to get really upset about such datasets because terrorism/vandalism/etc. But eventually more sane opinions prevailed as attackers don't use this type of data - they either have insider knowledge already or just drive around to scope out targets.
A lot of that still happens, just instead of "terrorism", it's "crime". FOIA requests for locations of camera, alpr, and other massively used and unaudited surveillance equipment are routinely denied because it will "allow criminals to circumvent". It's all silly and benchmark moving.
Yes, used to. 15 years ago trying to publish research on critical infrastructure vulnerabilities would get you a visit from the FBI (ask me how I know). Now you get invited to DC to present it in person and your remediation suggestions are taken seriously.
...that still doesn't mean they've stopped as a practice, on the whole, or through other intimidation methods. Hell, I'd argue that its current and subtle manifestation is more harmful on-the-whole than it used to be. Like, sure, the DHS voluntarily releases information, but that's discretionary and at their will. Eg, I sued the Chicago for database columns and table names after they argued it would be a security risk -- DHS gives that info about their own systems voluntarily. And that's even with case law from an ICE lawsuit that says schemas are exempt.
I rather appreciate knowing where the key electrical substations are in my area: helps me to understand exactly who can screw with things and where they would do it -- which makes me pay closer attention when I pass by substations and see someone lurking about. Not knowing that the location is critical I wouldn't think twice about someone loitering; knowing the location is sensitive and critical makes me look twice, take an active interest, and perhaps phone in a suspicious activity reports. Some people while about this information enabling terrorists: I think it enables all of us to open our eyes and protect our own interests.
I get the feeling an adversary who wants to know where they can cause the most mayhem of this nature already does. I think a map is ultimately unnecessary anyway; I'd guess it's more appealing to sabotage remotely using computer networking vulnerabilities than to risk a field agent.
This really pissed me off. Half of the trees in RMNP were/are dead standing since the Park Service had put out all natural fires for a century and did not allow logging of the dead wood. We hit the point where the fuel situation is so bad that fires are no longer controllable, and the fires burn so much hotter that it permanently scars the land by burning seeds that usually would make it through just fine.
This comment got downvoted but I think it's an important question.
Answer is: probably not, for the other reason stated. But it is sort of the wrong question too. Is underbrush removal the problem? Not really. There are a lot of things fire removes, besides underbrush, and restores to a natural state.
What we need to wrap our heads around is _fire is natural_; it's been here eons before humans walked the earth, and the native trees and forest have long evolved to take advantage of it.
The question we might ask instead is: why are so we so opposed to a natural process? Fire is definitely bad inside things like cities. However, a prescribed burn has enormous benefits that have been detailed in science literature ever since we noticed a decline in forests.
It would be interesting to see some stats on what you guys are see performance wise, how much storage the project takes up, and what framework you are using. Honestly you guys have a lot of head room for speed improvements.
Btw the server implementation I could find was archived?
Edit: That minute includes going through the "Press X for Y services" menu.