Isn't that true of all data in the database? On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 6:16 PM, Ian Dees <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 7:52 PM, Paul Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Monday, January 7, 2013, Ian Dees wrote: >> >>> On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 6:53 PM, Nathan Mixter <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> It would be awesome to include the land ownership data from BLM >>>> especially if we could do it for the whole US. Unfortunately that is >>>> probably not something that people would want to add because of the >>>> conflicts with other data. I wonder if we could include it on a limited >>>> basis or only include certain features. >>> >>> >>> We just had this conversation a couple threads ago. This sort of land >>> ownership border doesn't really belong in OSM because we can't improve it. >>> It's already in OSM because some people imported the BLM data so they could >>> see national park boundaries. >>> >> >> Just because we can't improve it doesn't mean it can't improve the map. >> > > I disagree. If we can't improve it then the only thing it can do is sit in > the database and become wrong. > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-us mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us > > -- Jeff Meyer Global World History Atlas www.gwhat.org [email protected] 206-676-2347 www.openstreetmap.org/user/jeffmeyer
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
