On Wed Sep 2 13:15:42 2015 GMT+0100, moltonel 3x Combo wrote: > On 02/09/2015, Colin Smale <colin.sm...@xs4all.nl> wrote: > > I see two separate issues getting mixed up: firstly, what types of data > > "belong" in OSM as a matter of principle, and secondly what quality > > criteria would apply. Clearly for the second point the data needs to be > > suitably licensed (if it is externally sourced) and it needs to be > > verifiable so "Joe Public" without any form of privileged access can > > verify its correctness. These are clearly principles which have existed > > in OSM for a long time. But a statement that certain whole categories of > > data do not belong in OSM *because* it sometimes might not be easily > > verifiable, is going a bit far. > > Saying that land property has no place in OSM is just a conclusion > that comes from the observation that this kind of data generally poses > big chalenges to verifyability and corrrectness, and that its > usefullness in osm is limited because ownership is one thing where you > have no choice to use the official authoritative source. > > If there's somewhere in the world where those concerns are not valid, > then go on and map properrty data there. Again, do you know of any > property data in osm ? What's the tagging schema ? > > The principle of "what data belongs in OSM" is about the propeties of > that data, not what kind of data it is. But as it happens, a given > kind of data usually has the same properties, so "this kind of data > doesn't belong in OSM" is a usefull simplification. > We can map barriers and visible dividing marks, but land ownership has massive privacy and data protection issues.
Phil (trigpoint) -- Sent from my Jolla _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
