Real-time crime map by three devs using OpenStreetMap

Real-time crime map by three devs using OpenStreetMap

Three young programmers have launched a collaborative map that geolocates incivil incidents in real time. According to their own account, the trigger was an assault on two siblings in Madrid three months ago, where one was seriously injured. Their conclusion was simple: if no one would warn them, they would warn each other. Thus, NoGoZone.org was born, a tool combining citizen reporting with open sources and relying on OpenStreetMap to avoid Google licensing fees.

The project is presented as a functional MVP with three pillars. The first is manual reporting: anyone can click on the map to log an incident with crime type, time, and location. The second, which they consider most useful, is hotspot monitoring: users mark their home, children's school, or hotel with a radius (they cite 500 meters as an example) and receive mobile alerts if a verified incident occurs within that perimeter. The third is the absence of editorial filters: whatever is reported appears.

Business model: donations and out-of-pocket servers

The economic approach is explicit: the tool is free, with no subscription plans or ads. The three promoters state they pay for servers from their own pockets and sustain the project through voluntary donations from those who find it useful. Practically, it is an exercise in minimal infrastructure: OpenStreetMap instead of Google Maps, media RSS feeds instead of proprietary databases, and a three-person team without external funding.

This austerity has a technical cost that users quickly detected. Several reported that the map did not load correctly, failed to resolve addresses without the www prefix, or had zoom and touch scrolling issues in browsers like Firefox or Brave. The promoters acknowledged the faults, attributing them partly to OpenStreetMap infrastructure and partly to domain configuration problems. "I'll figure out how to fix this crap with openmaps," one summarized.

Automation: from manual reports to news scraping

The bottleneck they identified was participation. The original idea—citizens reporting incidents—met an uncomfortable reality: people do not report. "We were optimistic," admitted one promoter, who began exploring alternative ways to populate the map without relying on others' goodwill.

The solution being implemented involves automation. According to details, the plan is to connect the system to RSS feeds from Spanish and international newspapers, filter crime news, and geolocate it so it appears on the map without human intervention. At the time of discussion, the system already connected to RSS feeds from cities with over 200,000 inhabitants in several countries. A participant provided a concrete technical roadmap: connect to RSS from outlets like El Mundo, filter by keywords or local language models, extract location from headlines, and geolocate via API, all executed periodically via cron.

The proposal faces objections noted by several: media often hide the origin of alleged perpetrators, limiting data granularity. And a deeper issue: if the map fills only with news, what is the point of citizen reporting?

Cold start problem and Waze's shadow

Comparisons with Waze appeared repeatedly. The mechanics are similar: users reporting real-time incidents, a points system to filter bots and fake users, and a self-regulating community. The difference is that Waze solves traffic problems while this project attempts to solve security issues. The most repeated suggestion was copying the confirmation system: having other users validate incidents and awarding points to accurate reporters.

Cold start is the classic obstacle for any collaborative platform. Without users, there is no data; without data, there are no users. Promoters considered restricting reporting to a small circle and uploading incidents themselves, a decision they admitted gave them vertigo because it distorts the project. The alternative they are exploring is dissemination: forums, Telegram, and potentially printing QR code posters for public transport, though one dismissed this last option due to the profile of potential recipients.

Predictable objection: racism and censorship

The project faces accusations anticipated by several: being labeled racist or far-right. "If it goes viral, they will call you racists and far-right, deal with it," predicted one participant. Another was more direct: "They will shut you down for racism or some shit." The promoters did not deny it. One replied that this already happens in his personal environment.

The tension is real and unresolved: a map geolocating crimes committed by persons identified by ethnic origin or nationality enters the territory of generalization. As described, the project does not filter by perpetrator, but the language used in some messages does. This contradiction between the tool and its communicative wrapper is likely its biggest fruta and legal risk.

What about data and who controls it?

Data protection questions appeared tangentially. Promoters stated they do not keep personal data, except email addresses to prevent bots. There is no mention in available material of GDPR compliance, privacy policies, or mechanisms to verify report accuracy. Nor content moderation.

This leaves open several issues the project must resolve to scale: What prevents someone from reporting a false incident at a neighbor's house? How is a crime verified without becoming a rumor source? Who is legally responsible if a report names a specific person? In its current state, the tool is a map of dots without a verification layer. That layer is precisely what separates a useful tool from a legal problem.

Context: public safety as a product

The project does not emerge in a vacuum. It stems from a perception of insecurity shared by several participants, translated into individual measures: from carrying a taser—one admitted doing so despite its illegality—to considering moving to a village. Public safety has become a product the market does not cover and which, according to this perception, administration also fails to provide. This gap is what these three programmers try to fill with open source and donations.

The unanswered question is whether a collaborative crime map solves anything or merely documents a problem. Evidence from similar projects in other countries—participants mentioned initiatives in Miami and Germany with hundreds of thousands of recorded incidents—suggests utility lies not in prevention but in visibility. A map does not stop an assault. But it makes visible a pattern that official narratives sometimes blur.

Is that enough?