Serge said:
I'm not convinced that landuse=residential and landuse=industrial, etc. are valuable data for OSM to have. We could certainly provide this data for rendering purposes, but I don't see the great value in it being in OSM.
Serge, do you mean residential and industrial areas IN THIS IMPORT do not convince you as valuable data for OSM to have, or do you mean that residential and industrial areas are not valuable / don't belong in OSM at all?
If the former, OK, that is one particular aspect of the NJ import that adds weight to your disagreement that this import or components should be in OSM. But if the latter (as your sentence structure seems to imply), I wholly disagree with you: "zoning" (landuse) tags are quite valuable in a map like OSM. Landuse, while still confused with landcover (another large issue, still slowly being untangled) is a large part of what people find highly useful when they look at the map: it describes humanity's use of the land as surely and profoundly as our highway networks, giving shape and context to areas through which streets (OSM's middle name) pass.
Usually, even often, I am glad of your "4+ years of active contributions and deep involvement with the OSM technical community" (as I hope others are of mine). But on this point, if you really mean that landuse tagging in general is superfluous or not valuable, I respectfully disagree with you.
Oh, and not just to Serge, but to everybody: "data" are plural. As in "these data...great value in them."
On the more general topic: I think it correct that discussion continue (here) between the original author of the import and others who find specific problems with the data. Make the discussion an example of the sort of civil, reasoned back-and-forth that OSM can and should have before data with which the community disagrees is edited/modified.
SteveA California _______________________________________________ Imports-us mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports-us
