On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 5:47 PM, Nathan Mills wrote:
> I can't speak to this specific instance, but based on Paul's usual
> criteria, I'd take what he has to say on the topic with a grain of salt. I
> gave up trying to convince him OK11 between I-244 and US-75 in Tulsa should
> be tagged as a moto
On Wed Sep 2 14:39:00 2015 GMT+0100, Lester Caine wrote:
> On 02/09/15 14:25, Paul Johnson wrote:
> > But in most (all?) of the US, land ownership (and vehicle ownership, for
> > that matter) records are open and subject to public inspection, and why
> > land transfers are typically published con
On Wed Sep 2 14:25:52 2015 GMT+0100, Paul Johnson wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 7:23 AM, wrote:
>
> > We can map barriers and visible dividing marks, but land ownership has
> > massive privacy and data protection issues.
>
>
> Depends on the region. I've even heard it from county officials
>
On 02/09/15 14:25, Paul Johnson wrote:
> But in most (all?) of the US, land ownership (and vehicle ownership, for
> that matter) records are open and subject to public inspection, and why
> land transfers are typically published conspicuously in the regional
> news periodical of record.
And in the
On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 7:23 AM, wrote:
> We can map barriers and visible dividing marks, but land ownership has
> massive privacy and data protection issues.
Depends on the region. I've even heard it from county officials
(incorrectly!) citing this regarding trying to get address centroids her
On Wed, 2 Sep 2015 08:08:45 -0500
Paul Johnson wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 7:22 PM, Russ Nelson wrote:
>
> > Too bad for that guy that he didn't check OpenStreetMap first,
> > because there was an abandoned railroad mapped in his back yard.
> > Now that the trail has been built, he has a fe
On 02/09/15 13:43, moltonel 3x Combo wrote:
>> Ideally I would like to add the NLPG reference
>> > to each but currently that is blocked by possible licensing problems. It
>> > WOULD be nice to complete the 'hidden' data
> Assuming the license issue gets resolved, how will you import it,
> conflat
On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 7:22 PM, Russ Nelson wrote:
> Too bad for that guy that he didn't check OpenStreetMap first, because
> there was an abandoned railroad mapped in his back yard. Now that the
> trail has been built, he has a fence about 5' behind his house. I
> can't imagine he's happy now.
>
On 02/09/15 13:23, p...@trigpoint.me.uk wrote:
>> The principle of "what data belongs in OSM" is about the propeties of
>> > that data, not what kind of data it is. But as it happens, a given
>> > kind of data usually has the same properties, so "this kind of data
>> > doesn't belong in OSM" is a u
On 02/09/2015, p...@trigpoint.me.uk wrote:
> We can map barriers and visible dividing marks, but land ownership has
> massive privacy and data protection issues.
In many countries, the geometry of land parcels is public data. Not
"this bit of land is owned by Phil Trigpoint" nor "this and that
pa
Sometimes land ownership is a matter of public record, it seems. Zoom in
and click on a plot:
http://gis.stlouiscountymn.gov/planningflexviewers/County_Explorer/
Sure there are privacy considerations, but they are not the same in all
jurisdictions. And the face that some jurisdictions would
On 02/09/2015, Lester Caine wrote:
> On 02/09/15 12:56, moltonel 3x Combo wrote:
>> Sorry, I see residential areas, hedges, postcodes, etc, overall a well
>> maped area with usefull detail, but nothing mapping land property ? I
>> never suggested that this kind of data was out of scope for OSM,
>>
On Wed Sep 2 13:15:42 2015 GMT+0100, moltonel 3x Combo wrote:
> On 02/09/2015, Colin Smale wrote:
> > I see two separate issues getting mixed up: firstly, what types of data
> > "belong" in OSM as a matter of principle, and secondly what quality
> > criteria would apply. Clearly for the second p
On 02/09/2015, Colin Smale wrote:
> I see two separate issues getting mixed up: firstly, what types of data
> "belong" in OSM as a matter of principle, and secondly what quality
> criteria would apply. Clearly for the second point the data needs to be
> suitably licensed (if it is externally sourc
On 02/09/15 12:56, moltonel 3x Combo wrote:
>> So I should remove all the detail on
>> > http://www.openstreetmap.org/search?query=wr12%207ep#map=17/52.04851/-1.85665
>> > rather than adding the missing detail to the right?
> Sorry, I see residential areas, hedges, postcodes, etc, overall a well
>
On 02/09/2015, Lester Caine wrote:
> On 02/09/15 11:30, moltonel 3x Combo wrote:
>> I always understood that land property was out of scope for OSM. Do
>> you know of any osm data which records property ?
>
> So I should remove all the detail on
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/search?query=wr12%207
On Wed, 2 Sep 2015 12:36:26 +0100
Lester Caine wrote:
> On 02/09/15 11:30, moltonel 3x Combo wrote:
> > I always understood that land property was out of scope for OSM. Do
> > you know of any osm data which records property ?
>
> So I should remove all the detail on
> http://www.openstreetmap.or
On 02/09/15 11:30, moltonel 3x Combo wrote:
> I always understood that land property was out of scope for OSM. Do
> you know of any osm data which records property ?
So I should remove all the detail on
http://www.openstreetmap.org/search?query=wr12%207ep#map=17/52.04851/-1.85665
rather than addin
I see two separate issues getting mixed up: firstly, what types of data
"belong" in OSM as a matter of principle, and secondly what quality
criteria would apply. Clearly for the second point the data needs to be
suitably licensed (if it is externally sourced) and it needs to be
verifiable so "Jo
On 02/09/2015, Russ Nelson wrote:
> Too bad for that guy that he didn't check OpenStreetMap first, because
> there was an abandoned railroad mapped in his back yard.
Lots of former railway land is now privately owned, sometimes even
before the rails get removed. So the fact that there was an aban
On 02/09/2015 01:22, Russ Nelson wrote:
Bryce Nesbitt writes:
> I've worked on "rails to trails" projects where the physical trace
> of the railbed was subsumed by fences, lines of trees and (in once
> case) a swimming pool.
I'll bet you're talking about the Wallkill Valley Trail north of
On 02/09/2015, Colin Smale wrote:
> Are you suggesting that parcel boundaries have no place in OSM, or that
> only verifiable sources should be used? Suppose there was a suitably
> licensed source of such boundaries, with authoritative provenance. Would
> you be against this being in OSM on princi
On Wed, 02 Sep 2015 11:57:19 +0200
Colin Smale wrote:
> Are you suggesting that parcel boundaries have no place in OSM, or
> that only verifiable sources should be used? Suppose there was a
> suitably licensed source of such boundaries, with authoritative
> provenance. Would you be against this b
Are you suggesting that parcel boundaries have no place in OSM, or that
only verifiable sources should be used? Suppose there was a suitably
licensed source of such boundaries, with authoritative provenance. Would
you be against this being in OSM on principle? Or is it only your
supposition that
Hi,
On 09/02/2015 02:22 AM, Russ Nelson wrote:
> I think Bryce's observation lays this issue to rest. No, you should
> not delete railways you cannot see, because they might still exist in
> the property lines,
Mapping property lines in OSM isn't something I think makes sense. There
are reasons w
25 matches
Mail list logo
