Some OSM Editors have spent time improving at least county borders. A core part of the discussion is ownership. If BLM data is added to the OSM DB, who are the individuals within the community that will take active ownership for keeping the data quality high and updated as BLM issues changes, or as OSM editors inject errors ? If the data simply degrades over time, then it's really of no value to anyone.
We do have an issue with US state and county borders, as some are missing, incorrect, incomplete or incorrectly tagged. Perhaps we can organize a cleanse the state and county borders project to improve the data quality and currentness. Best, On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 7:08 PM, Mike Thompson <[email protected]> wrote: > > Some thoughts supporting the inclusion of this data: > > It seems that it is just about as unlikely that state, county and city > boundaries will be improved, but they are in OSM. > > Some improvement may be possible, as the boundaries to Federal land are > often demarcated with signs or survey monuments. In addition, there is > value in making these boundaries consistent with other elements in OSM, > such as the aforementioned county boundaries. For example, if one knows > that the BLM land and the county share the same boundary, they can be > "snapped" together. > > If I am a data user, for example, if I were to start a website dedicated > to hiking maps and I had to choose between proprietary data and OSM, the > completeness of the data is something that I would consider. Sure, I > could get the BLM data myself, and add it into my web maps, but that is > just one more step, and the BLM data is not likely to be consistent with > the OSM data (see above), thus making a messy map. > > Mike > > > On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 7:34 PM, Jeff Meyer <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 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 >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-us mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us > > -- John Novak 585-OLD-TOPOS (585-653-8676) http://www.linkedin.com/in/johnanovak/ OSM ID:oldtopos OSM Heat Map: http://yosmhm.neis-one.org/?oldtopos OSM Edit Stats:http://hdyc.neis-one.org/?oldtopos
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
