+1 for not having statistical boundaries in OSM. My objection is along the lines of what has been said about the boundaries changing. Once changed, who then takes responsibility to make it right? If there is a lack of integrity at least in my experience I would look for more credible sources.
From: Brad Neuhauser [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, January 09, 2015 7:31 AM To: Harald Kliems Cc: Richard Welty; [email protected] Subject: Re: [Talk-us] CDP tagging +1 to not having statistical boundaries in OSM. Even actual legal administrative boundaries change as there are annexations, detachments, mergers, improved accuracy, etc., so what's in OSM (or from the Census) should be used with that in mind too. On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 8:48 AM, Harald Kliems <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: On Fri Jan 09 2015 at 9:41:21 AM Richard Welty <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: i think CDP boundaries are very clear cut, but they morph frequently, have no legal standing, and don't necessarily correspond to what local residents think. ... and there is no way to verify them on the ground. Yes, this is true for the various boundary/admin data too, but at least in that case there are good reasons for having them inside the OSM DB. So +1 for not having census boundaries in OSM. Harald. _______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
