Hi, I am not sure this has been discussed before.
We have decided that we don't want parcel data into the US OSM database. I agree with this decision. However, looking at the map in Mass, the situation is not so cut and dry. The open space layer from MassGIS was imported several years ago. This has encouraged people to map out many of the hiking trails. Surprisingly, I think that OSM is currently the best/most complete map of hiking trails in Mass. In fact many of the mappers in Mass came to OSM from the local trail committee's (myself included). So reality is that we do have some parcel data data in OSM and its inclusion has been a net positive. So the question is, what should the exact criteria be for including an "open space" parcel in OSM. Consider some of the various types of property. - True conservation land, land that is owned by a private non-profit or owned by the town that is supposed to be never developed, the public is allowed to use it for light recreation activities, and that's it. - Town land that is open to the public, but is not developed. Watersheds, parks, undeveloped tracks etc. - Playgrounds - Public Schools - Private land that is open to the public as long as people stay on the marked trails. - Private land that has development restrictions, but is not open to the public. - In between, places like the "New England Forestry Foundation", that harvest tree's, so the land is in fact a "forest", but encourages the public use the land and who's mission is conservation. Basically, what I have settled on is that the parcel is included if the land can't be developed and the public is allowed access. If either test is false, it does not go in. Looking for peoples thoughts on this. Thanks Jason. _______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
