I don't think we should map all ownership in OSM either, however, there is a
lot of tagging in OSM right now which does tag ownership=national,
ownership=state, which, for public lands owned by the federal or a state
government, I have no problem with making this distinction known in OSM
tagging. It doesn't "hurt" our data and I personally find it informative to
make this distinction (sometimes as an OSM author, sometimes as an OSM
consumer). I feel here that Joseph is asking us to accept hyperbole ("we
should not try to map all land ownership by parcel") when I'm not nor do I
believe our volunteers are asking that. (I understand why, I even agree,
"let's not tip towards OSM as cadastral-oracle, those are elsewhere"). I might
tag something ownership=national or ownership=state on some public land,
because lots of us seem to be doing that and I find it useful data (sometimes).
OSM isn't looked to as a land-ownership database, even as it might have a
sprinkling of those on data, especially "national vs. state" distinctions for
public land. That's fairly common around the world.
In California, if you don't put a Civil Code 1008 sign up on your private-land
easement, de facto or de jure, it might become a public easement. There are
rules, they are local, I don't think OSM wants to quibble here. We might need
to quibble and sketch in some localized method of doing things at some level in
some cases, that's manageable. I am not an attorney.
It's OK to have similar conversations over and over again. We get a bit
smarter and sharper as we do, as long as we don't lose patience or civility. I
think we're fine in that department.
SteveA
_______________________________________________
Talk-us mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
