Brad —
My reference to Gaia GPS was meant to illustrate that third party apps are
perfectly capable of overlaying data from various sources. Just because a data
source exists doesn’t mean that it should be in OSM. On the ground
verifiability has always been the gold standard for OSM, and I
On January 6, 2019 at 7:50:44 AM PST, brad wrote:
>
> Joseph, I'm not stuck on class 27, but as you say, that fits the definition
> on the wiki. I should probably look for other specific protection in the
> attributes and translate that somehow. Mostly it's just grazing and
> recreation
On Sat, 5 Jan 2019 21:19:10 -0600
Ian Dees wrote:
> Hi Brad, thanks for proposing this import and posting it here.
>
> I would strongly prefer that we not import boundaries like this into
> OSM. Boundaries of all sorts are almost impossible to verify with
> OSM's "on the ground" rule, but BLM
Joseph, I'm not stuck on class 27, but as you say, that fits the
definition on the wiki. I should probably look for other specific
protection in the attributes and translate that somehow. Mostly it's
just grazing and recreation land. Anything such as wilderness or
monument would
Ian Dees wrote:
>"Those things shouldn't be in OSM either"
Are you implying that because such boundaries (National Forests, National
Parks and National Wildlife Refuges) are non-verifiable by OSM mappers they
don't belong in OSM? If so, wow!
I live in Alaska where about 60% of the land area is
> Clean up as necessary (there are some extraneous ways at state
> boundaries & elsewhere)
BLM manages about 10% of the total area of the United States, and those
areas historically have had the least resources dedicated in terms of
mapping. Also, the BLM data is an amalgamation of data from
6 matches
Mail list logo
