Re: [OSM-talk] [Tagging] Hunting area tagging

Hi, On 10/25/2016 05:45 PM, Pine W wrote: > Perhaps there are parts of the world in which official databases are > incomplete, outdated, or nonexistent, This is true for most official databases in so-called "first-world countries". The content of official databases should never be considered

Re: [Talk-us] [OSM-talk] [Tagging] Hunting area tagging

Whoops, wrong list! Sorry. On Oct 25, 2016 08:41, "Pine W" wrote: > I think you misunderstood my purpose. I was not contacting OSM to complain > about illegal signs. I was responding to the original poster and urging > caution about relying on signs. At least in my

Re: [OSM-talk] [Tagging] Hunting area tagging

I think you misunderstood my purpose. I was not contacting OSM to complain about illegal signs. I was responding to the original poster and urging caution about relying on signs. At least in my jurisdiction, official databases seem to me to be more reliable than signage regarding property rights.

Re: [Talk-us] [OSM-talk] [Tagging] Hunting area tagging

I think you misunderstood my purpose. I was not contacting OSM to complain about illegal signs. I was responding to the original poster and urging caution about relying on signs. At least in my jurisdiction, official databases seem to me to be more reliable than signage regarding property rights.

Re: [OSM-talk] [Tagging] Hunting area tagging

2016-10-25 1:31 GMT+02:00 Pine W : > Just a comment that I'd be wary of "No hunting", "Hunting allowed", or > "Private property", or other signs on the ground that can actually be > placed by anyone, whether or not they are legal. > this can be (according to the local

Re: [OSM-talk] [Tagging] Hunting area tagging

I would use the 'Open Data from official sources' to confirm the 'on the ground' public signage. A conflict should lead to further investigation/thought. On 25-Oct-16 10:45 AM, john whelan wrote: A very interesting comment, considering the lengths we seem to go to to avoid importing Open

Re: [OSM-talk] [Tagging] Hunting area tagging

A very interesting comment, considering the lengths we seem to go to to avoid importing Open Data from official sources. Cheerio John On 24 Oct 2016 7:35 pm, "Pine W" wrote: > Just a comment that I'd be wary of "No hunting", "Hunting allowed", or > "Private property", or

Re: [OSM-talk] [Tagging] Hunting area tagging

Just a comment that I'd be wary of "No hunting", "Hunting allowed", or "Private property", or other signs on the ground that can actually be placed by anyone, whether or not they are legal. A problem that I've encountered more than once is a private property owner putting out what appeared to me

Re: [OSM-talk] [Tagging] Hunting area tagging

sent from a phone > Il giorno 24 ott 2016, alle ore 20:22, yvecai ha scritto: > > Michal, > You're half right IMO. I don't see such problems if > 1) tagging is made by hunters > 2) mapping is made by hunters I'm not a hunter, but I have encountered a lot of "hunting

Re: [OSM-talk] [Tagging] Hunting area tagging

On 25-Oct-16 01:01 AM, Michał Brzozowski wrote: I, for one, think that hunting areas don't really belong to OSM. Or at least benefits are outweighed by problems. OSM was initially aimed at mapping streets. Do not limit the development of OSM in any direction! IF someone wants to give an

Re: [OSM-talk] [Tagging] Hunting area tagging

Michal, You're half right IMO. I don't see such problems if 1) tagging is made by hunters 2) mapping is made by hunters Yves On 24.10.2016 16:01, Michał Brzozowski wrote: I, for one, think that hunting areas don't really belong to OSM. Or at least benefits are outweighed by problems. Firstly

Re: [OSM-talk] [Tagging] Hunting area tagging

I, for one, think that hunting areas don't really belong to OSM. Or at least benefits are outweighed by problems. Firstly they may or may not be associated with OSM features. In the latter case, there's no guarantee that someone who edits a forest would understand it and not merge it with other