Re: [OSM-talk] [Talk-us] Request revert on Changeset #33669446
On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 5:47 PM, Nathan Mills wrote: > I can't speak to this specific instance, but based on Paul's usual > criteria, I'd take what he has to say on the topic with a grain of salt. I > gave up trying to convince him OK11 between I-244 and US-75 in Tulsa should > be tagged as a motorway a long time ago, even though it has zero at grade > intersections. > Actually, you're right about the OK 11 case, not sure what I was on about with that one. I think we're on the same page with the Gilcrease Expressway west of that location. > I also think the LL Tisdale between downtown and Pine should be classified > motorway, but that one is at least arguable to my mind since it is very > short and has only three interchanges, one of which is directional. Pine seems a bit arbitrary on that one, if I were to make the cut, I'd probably do that at Apache, but either way; I'm leaning towards trunk on that one since it's barely even long enough to get up to speed (and even then, from experience, so long as you're in a car and not in or stuck behind a bus or something that would fall under "goods" or "hgv" thanks to the south side of Gilcrease Hill making it deceptively steep uphill both ways) in either direction before you're on the brakes for the yield signs and unusually sharp ramps at the south end and the signalized junctions at the north end. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Abandoned Rails
On Wed Sep 2 14:39:00 2015 GMT+0100, Lester Caine wrote: > On 02/09/15 14:25, Paul Johnson wrote: > > But in most (all?) of the US, land ownership (and vehicle ownership, for > > that matter) records are open and subject to public inspection, and why > > land transfers are typically published conspicuously in the regional > > news periodical of record. > > And in the UK you just buy a copy of the Electoral Register ... The edited register, which most people aren't on, or at least those who read the form aren't on. Phil (trigpoint) -- Sent from my Jolla ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Abandoned Rails
On Wed Sep 2 14:25:52 2015 GMT+0100, Paul Johnson wrote: > On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 7:23 AM, wrote: > > > We can map barriers and visible dividing marks, but land ownership has > > massive privacy and data protection issues. > > > Depends on the region. I've even heard it from county officials > (incorrectly!) citing this regarding trying to get address centroids here > (even though I'm not interested in who owns the land or even necessarily > what the property lines are, just where one can expect to find an address > along a street, and only requested the centroids; see the OKGIS archive > from August for how that went). But in most (all?) of the US, land > ownership (and vehicle ownership, for that matter) records are open and > subject to public inspection, and why land transfers are typically > published conspicuously in the regional news perodical of record. Which is > why landowners get phone calls by name from roofing contractors after > storms have gone through, and why you'll get junkmail from lawyers and body > shops if your plate number (or sometimes even a similar one if someone > fudged it, as I discovered when someone in Ohio who has the same plate > number as me was apparently involved in a bad wreck) was reported in an > accident. > That is scary,and the reason most home numbers in the UK are ex-directory/unlisted. It prevents cold-callers having a foot in the door. The phonebook is a fraction of the size it was when I was a kid. Phil (trigpoint) -- Sent from my Jolla ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Abandoned Rails
On 02/09/15 14:25, Paul Johnson wrote: > But in most (all?) of the US, land ownership (and vehicle ownership, for > that matter) records are open and subject to public inspection, and why > land transfers are typically published conspicuously in the regional > news periodical of record. And in the UK you just buy a copy of the Electoral Register ... -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Abandoned Rails
On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 7:23 AM, wrote: > We can map barriers and visible dividing marks, but land ownership has > massive privacy and data protection issues. Depends on the region. I've even heard it from county officials (incorrectly!) citing this regarding trying to get address centroids here (even though I'm not interested in who owns the land or even necessarily what the property lines are, just where one can expect to find an address along a street, and only requested the centroids; see the OKGIS archive from August for how that went). But in most (all?) of the US, land ownership (and vehicle ownership, for that matter) records are open and subject to public inspection, and why land transfers are typically published conspicuously in the regional news perodical of record. Which is why landowners get phone calls by name from roofing contractors after storms have gone through, and why you'll get junkmail from lawyers and body shops if your plate number (or sometimes even a similar one if someone fudged it, as I discovered when someone in Ohio who has the same plate number as me was apparently involved in a bad wreck) was reported in an accident. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Abandoned Rails
On Wed, 2 Sep 2015 08:08:45 -0500 Paul Johnson wrote: > On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 7:22 PM, Russ Nelson wrote: > > > Too bad for that guy that he didn't check OpenStreetMap first, > > because there was an abandoned railroad mapped in his back yard. > > Now that the trail has been built, he has a fence about 5' behind > > his house. I can't imagine he's happy now. > > > > Wait, what? I understand that OSM does incorporate *some* cadastre > data, such as is the case for situations where it makes more sense to > map out a landuse=* parcel and give it the appropriate name and > access tags. However, attempting to use OSM as a substitute for using > the official cadastre from the county clerk, land office or other > regional equivalent for landuse planning regarding legal encroachment > would be woefully ill-advised. This is something you really want to > hire a licensed surveyor to stake out your legal property lines on > and not just guess. Or you're likely to build a swimming pool in the > middle of an abandoned railroad that's being converted into a > cycleway. And "abandoned railway" that was not noticed by somebody in his/her own back yard seems to be a good example of object that should not be mapped in OSM. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Abandoned Rails
On 02/09/15 13:43, moltonel 3x Combo wrote: >> Ideally I would like to add the NLPG reference >> > to each but currently that is blocked by possible licensing problems. It >> > WOULD be nice to complete the 'hidden' data > Assuming the license issue gets resolved, how will you import it, > conflate with existing data, tag ? How will you keep it up to date > when a field or a chunk of garden changes hand between neighbours ? > Who do you expect will make use of the data ? My main client base is council based systems, so I HAVE the LLPG data for each client. I just can't use it in OSM. The main problem here is I'm using OSM to display location information so that staff can manage things like 'change of address', and YES recording changes to the LLPG data in order to amend the raw data which is then uploaded to NLPG. Using OSM allows much more flexible options on the user interface than OS does and potentially the whole country can be kept up to date simply because the data is already being digitised and we the UK public are paying for that! Drawing a line around each boundary is still a problem as are areas in general in OSM. I'm not happy with using 'relations' to draw areas, but simply drawing a polygon for a field or property boundary is messy when one needs to add gates, boundary style, and yes 'hidden' elements such as open driveways. So one is essentially limited to creating a relation for each property and then does one include the buildings within the area in the relation? Which is why I've stopped at just drawing boundary types so far. Actually the property boundaries on our road include the area of grass outside the front fence, but not the path which is another detail not yet added ... -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Abandoned Rails
On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 7:22 PM, Russ Nelson wrote: > Too bad for that guy that he didn't check OpenStreetMap first, because > there was an abandoned railroad mapped in his back yard. Now that the > trail has been built, he has a fence about 5' behind his house. I > can't imagine he's happy now. > Wait, what? I understand that OSM does incorporate *some* cadastre data, such as is the case for situations where it makes more sense to map out a landuse=* parcel and give it the appropriate name and access tags. However, attempting to use OSM as a substitute for using the official cadastre from the county clerk, land office or other regional equivalent for landuse planning regarding legal encroachment would be woefully ill-advised. This is something you really want to hire a licensed surveyor to stake out your legal property lines on and not just guess. Or you're likely to build a swimming pool in the middle of an abandoned railroad that's being converted into a cycleway. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Abandoned Rails
On 02/09/15 13:23, p...@trigpoint.me.uk wrote: >> 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. Adding actual names against a property is perhaps the question here? And that is a step to far. Even NLPG data does not have personal data included IN it, but simply putting an address into a phone book on the internet will more than likely provide that data. I don't see any problem identifying what fields belong to a particular farm or what area belongs to a particular dwelling. That is essentially 'land use' and part of this came about because of a blanket application of 'farmland' to some areas of the UK but where proper verification of boundaries throws up various problems with THAT data and now tidying that up needs 'non-visible' information in addition to the visible stuff to correct the mistakes. I have tried simply hiding the data which works around here, but another area nearer London is obviously using a different tag to 'farmland' ... just not identified yet what else to ignore. -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Abandoned Rails
On 02/09/2015, p...@trigpoint.me.uk wrote: > We can map barriers and visible dividing marks, but land ownership has > massive privacy and data protection issues. In many countries, the geometry of land parcels is public data. Not "this bit of land is owned by Phil Trigpoint" nor "this and that parcel are owned by the same guy" but just how the land is geographically divided. I'm not saying that property data should go into OSM (:p), just that it's probably not the privacy issue you think it is. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Abandoned Rails
Sometimes land ownership is a matter of public record, it seems. Zoom in and click on a plot: http://gis.stlouiscountymn.gov/planningflexviewers/County_Explorer/ Sure there are privacy considerations, but they are not the same in all jurisdictions. And the face that some jurisdictions would have a problem with OSM having data that other jurisdictions would frown upon, is no reason in itself to disqualify that whole category of data from OSM. We have similar challenges with military stuff and disputed borders as well. We don't want to become a least common denominator with only data that is agreed by the entire world. On 2015-09-02 14:23, p...@trigpoint.me.uk wrote: > On Wed Sep 2 13:15:42 2015 GMT+0100, moltonel 3x Combo wrote: On 02/09/2015, > Colin Smale 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) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Abandoned Rails
On 02/09/2015, Lester Caine wrote: > On 02/09/15 12:56, moltonel 3x Combo wrote: >> Sorry, I see residential areas, hedges, postcodes, etc, overall a well >> maped area with usefull detail, but nothing mapping land property ? I >> never suggested that this kind of data was out of scope for OSM, >> please go ahead and map more of it. When I mentioned "land property" >> I'm talking about legal ownership, parcels, cadastre, etc. > > The boundaries mapped are property boundaries as are the field > boundaries around them. When I think of mapping properties I expect a multipolygon, hopefully following many physical objects such as hedges and fences, is that what you have in mind ? > Ideally I would like to add the NLPG reference > to each but currently that is blocked by possible licensing problems. It > WOULD be nice to complete the 'hidden' data Assuming the license issue gets resolved, how will you import it, conflate with existing data, tag ? How will you keep it up to date when a field or a chunk of garden changes hand between neighbours ? Who do you expect will make use of the data ? I'm not saying that this data doesn't belong in OSM as much as I am saying "I won't touch that kind of data with a 10 foot pole, it's too hard to import/maintain, it's a huge amount of data (bloat) that will complicate editing, and anyway it won't be usable for most usecases". Go ahead and map the fences and anything else that gives a visual clue as to where the property ends. But the actual legal property data ? It's not worth it. > in much the same way the > postcode is added here so that searches can be done properly. Just > because a post has not been put in the ground to identify a location, > the location still exists if properly documented. Postcodes, like all address components, are always welcome in OSM even though they are not always phisically visible. Addresses are a major OSM usecase. A postcode has a much lower granularity than a parcel. It doesn't have to be exact and authoritative, it only has to lead to the correct location. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Abandoned Rails
On Wed Sep 2 13:15:42 2015 GMT+0100, moltonel 3x Combo wrote: > On 02/09/2015, Colin Smale 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
Re: [OSM-talk] Abandoned Rails
On 02/09/2015, Colin Smale 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. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Abandoned Rails
On 02/09/15 12:56, moltonel 3x Combo wrote: >> So I should remove all the detail on >> > http://www.openstreetmap.org/search?query=wr12%207ep#map=17/52.04851/-1.85665 >> > rather than adding the missing detail to the right? > Sorry, I see residential areas, hedges, postcodes, etc, overall a well > maped area with usefull detail, but nothing mapping land property ? I > never suggested that this kind of data was out of scope for OSM, > please go ahead and map more of it. When I mentioned "land property" > I'm talking about legal ownership, parcels, cadastre, etc. The boundaries mapped are property boundaries as are the field boundaries around them. Ideally I would like to add the NLPG reference to each but currently that is blocked by possible licensing problems. It WOULD be nice to complete the 'hidden' data in much the same way the postcode is added here so that searches can be done properly. Just because a post has not been put in the ground to identify a location, the location still exists if properly documented. -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Abandoned Rails
On 02/09/2015, Lester Caine wrote: > On 02/09/15 11:30, moltonel 3x Combo wrote: >> I always understood that land property was out of scope for OSM. Do >> you know of any osm data which records property ? > > So I should remove all the detail on > http://www.openstreetmap.org/search?query=wr12%207ep#map=17/52.04851/-1.85665 > rather than adding the missing detail to the right? Sorry, I see residential areas, hedges, postcodes, etc, overall a well maped area with usefull detail, but nothing mapping land property ? I never suggested that this kind of data was out of scope for OSM, please go ahead and map more of it. When I mentioned "land property" I'm talking about legal ownership, parcels, cadastre, etc. > And the 'Abandoned Railway' to the left is a protected route which HAS > encroachments onto it, but which is still potentially re-enstatable once > the line to Broadway becomes active again. Using the ground for a long > period does not always allow to take possession of it and rail routes > are one of those documented exceptions. Sure. It looks well mapped to me. Again, I don't see how your answer relates to the subject of mapping land ownership, there's no ownership mapped on these osm objects. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Abandoned Rails
On Wed, 2 Sep 2015 12:36:26 +0100 Lester Caine wrote: > On 02/09/15 11:30, moltonel 3x Combo wrote: > > I always understood that land property was out of scope for OSM. Do > > you know of any osm data which records property ? > > So I should remove all the detail on > http://www.openstreetmap.org/search?query=wr12%207ep#map=17/52.04851/-1.85665 > rather than adding the missing detail to the right? Can you be more specific? You linked to general location in map rendering that is not showing legal property rights. Can you link to specific OSM elements that you propose for removal? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Abandoned Rails
On 02/09/15 11:30, moltonel 3x Combo wrote: > I always understood that land property was out of scope for OSM. Do > you know of any osm data which records property ? So I should remove all the detail on http://www.openstreetmap.org/search?query=wr12%207ep#map=17/52.04851/-1.85665 rather than adding the missing detail to the right? And the 'Abandoned Railway' to the left is a protected route which HAS encroachments onto it, but which is still potentially re-enstatable once the line to Broadway becomes active again. Using the ground for a long period does not always allow to take possession of it and rail routes are one of those documented exceptions. -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Abandoned Rails
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. On 2015-09-02 12:30, moltonel 3x Combo wrote: > On 02/09/2015, Colin Smale wrote: > >> Are you suggesting that parcel boundaries have no place in OSM, or that >> only verifiable sources should be used? Suppose there was a suitably >> licensed source of such boundaries, with authoritative provenance. Would >> you be against this being in OSM on principle? Or is it only your >> supposition that such information cannot be sufficiently verifiable >> which gives rise to your concern? >> >> Anyway, fences, signs etc are not reliable indicators of parcel >> boundaries (where there are land registries), unless the boundary is >> legally described with reference to these physical artefacts. > > I always understood that land property was out of scope for OSM. Do > you know of any osm data which records property ? > > IMHO verifyability is a major issue here. Real-world barriers don't > match the legal ones, borders change regularly (that's a major > difference with admin boundaries), and even the authoritative source > is often murky (I'm now 3-4 months into the process of figuring out > wether I own a piece of land at the back of my garden). > > On top of that, whenever you need to know about land ownership, you > are legally obliged to refer to the authoritative source. Looking up > the info in a crowdsourced db, even if it was completely correct, > would most often be a waste of time. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Abandoned Rails
On 02/09/2015, Russ Nelson wrote: > Too bad for that guy that he didn't check OpenStreetMap first, because > there was an abandoned railroad mapped in his back yard. Lots of former railway land is now privately owned, sometimes even before the rails get removed. So the fact that there was an abandoned (dismantled ?) railroad in his backyard didn't, on its own, mean that he didn't own the place. In many countries (not sure about the USA), there's also a legal concept of "if you build on a piece of land and nobody complains for X years (with X being quite high), then that piece of land defacto belongs to you". This leads to people sometimes building on land with a unclear ownership status, chancing it and hoping for the best. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Abandoned Rails
On 02/09/2015 01:22, Russ Nelson wrote: Bryce Nesbitt writes: > I've worked on "rails to trails" projects where the physical trace > of the railbed was subsumed by fences, lines of trees and (in once > case) a swimming pool. I'll bet you're talking about the Wallkill Valley Trail north of Rosendale! I think I know the very place you're talking about! Guy had built his house right up to the ROW property line, and put his swimming pool on the ROW itself. Too bad for that guy that he didn't check OpenStreetMap first, because there was an abandoned railroad mapped in his back yard. Now that the trail has been built, he has a fence about 5' behind his house. I can't imagine he's happy now. I think Bryce's observation lays this issue to rest. No, you should not delete railways you cannot see, because they might still exist in the property lines, and if you haven't checked, you don't know. If somebody added it to OSM, they probably have better reason to have done so than you have reason to delete it, so leave it there! Thanks for your cooperation! Map entities that you can see on the ground. i realise there are some, like boundaries, but we have verifiable proof they exist. For old railway line map the entities that remain, such embankments, bridges etc, but not the actual track if it's been removed or there's a housing estate built over it. To repeat myself: OSM is a database of *current* entities. Dave F. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Abandoned Rails
On 02/09/2015, Colin Smale wrote: > Are you suggesting that parcel boundaries have no place in OSM, or that > only verifiable sources should be used? Suppose there was a suitably > licensed source of such boundaries, with authoritative provenance. Would > you be against this being in OSM on principle? Or is it only your > supposition that such information cannot be sufficiently verifiable > which gives rise to your concern? > > Anyway, fences, signs etc are not reliable indicators of parcel > boundaries (where there are land registries), unless the boundary is > legally described with reference to these physical artefacts. I always understood that land property was out of scope for OSM. Do you know of any osm data which records property ? IMHO verifyability is a major issue here. Real-world barriers don't match the legal ones, borders change regularly (that's a major difference with admin boundaries), and even the authoritative source is often murky (I'm now 3-4 months into the process of figuring out wether I own a piece of land at the back of my garden). On top of that, whenever you need to know about land ownership, you are legally obliged to refer to the authoritative source. Looking up the info in a crowdsourced db, even if it was completely correct, would most often be a waste of time. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Abandoned Rails
On Wed, 02 Sep 2015 11:57:19 +0200 Colin Smale wrote: > Are you suggesting that parcel boundaries have no place in OSM, or > that only verifiable sources should be used? Suppose there was a > suitably licensed source of such boundaries, with authoritative > provenance. Would you be against this being in OSM on principle? Or > is it only your supposition that such information cannot be > sufficiently verifiable which gives rise to your concern? > > Anyway, fences, signs etc are not reliable indicators of parcel > boundaries (where there are land registries), unless the boundary is > legally described with reference to these physical artefacts. > only verifiable sources should be used? Yes. And objects unverifiable on the ground should be added only after really careful consideration. > Are you suggesting that parcel boundaries have no place in OSM I think that this data is too hard to maintain, unlikely to be useful and importing it would result in editing problems due to adding massive amount of objects unverifiable on the ground. It would be basically mirroring official database what is pointless. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Abandoned Rails
Are you suggesting that parcel boundaries have no place in OSM, or that only verifiable sources should be used? Suppose there was a suitably licensed source of such boundaries, with authoritative provenance. Would you be against this being in OSM on principle? Or is it only your supposition that such information cannot be sufficiently verifiable which gives rise to your concern? Anyway, fences, signs etc are not reliable indicators of parcel boundaries (where there are land registries), unless the boundary is legally described with reference to these physical artefacts. On 2015-09-02 11:36, Frederik Ramm wrote: > Hi, > > On 09/02/2015 02:22 AM, Russ Nelson wrote: > >> I think Bryce's observation lays this issue to rest. No, you should >> not delete railways you cannot see, because they might still exist in >> the property lines, > > Mapping property lines in OSM isn't something I think makes sense. There > are reasons why we don't map land parcels. > > The strength of OSM lies in verifiability, just like (one of) the > strength(s) of Open Source software is that anyone can look a the code > and check it. > > Invisible property lines have to place in OSM because they cannot be > easily verified and therefore they will never come close to the > reliability that OSM has in other areas. > > Unless marked by fences, signs, or other verifiable means, property > lines should not be in OSM. > > Bye > Frederik ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Abandoned Rails
Hi, On 09/02/2015 02:22 AM, Russ Nelson wrote: > I think Bryce's observation lays this issue to rest. No, you should > not delete railways you cannot see, because they might still exist in > the property lines, Mapping property lines in OSM isn't something I think makes sense. There are reasons why we don't map land parcels. The strength of OSM lies in verifiability, just like (one of) the strength(s) of Open Source software is that anyone can look a the code and check it. Invisible property lines have to place in OSM because they cannot be easily verified and therefore they will never come close to the reliability that OSM has in other areas. Unless marked by fences, signs, or other verifiable means, property lines should not be in OSM. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
