Re: [Talk-us] parcel data in OSM

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

On 29.12.2012 03:22, Russ Nelson wrote:

Here in the US where you aren't allowed to trespass on private
property except on certain conditions, these "line[s] in some
government database" MATTER to mappers and to map users.


But surely there must be something on the ground that tells you where 
you can go and where you can't? Else how would people have evaded being 
shot in pre-satnav times?



It may be different where you live. That doesn't mean you should
advocate for us to map badly.


Mapping, in OSM, has a large component of surveying. "Mapping badly" is 
mapping without survey.


It is possible that you *need* those "lines in a government database" 
for whatever outdoor activity you are planning, and it might indeed be a 
good idea for a map producer to include them in his map.


But that doesn't mean it makes sense to include it in the OSM database.

Too many people think that anything they want to see on a map, must go 
into OSM. That is wrong. Anything that should be the subject of crowd 
editing must go into OSM; anything else should not.


Un-surveyable data is a nuisance for everyone working with OSM data; it 
disempowers the mapper who works with the data because they have to 
simply accept it as a fact if they cannot see it on the ground.


Adding such data to OSM sends the message to mappers: "If there's a 
mismatch between OSM data and what you see on the ground, better don't 
mess with the OSM data because surely someone has put that there for a 
reason."


This is what leads to bad mapping.

Bye
Frederik

--
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] parcel data in OSM

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

On 29.12.2012 05:38, Russ Nelson wrote:

  > The moment it makes its way in to OSM it becomes incorrect. There is
  > *absolutely* no way to improve the data once it's in OSM, so it should not
  > be in OSM. Period.

That's a great theory, but I don't think many people subscribe to
it.


I think that is more than a theory. Weren't you the one who proposed to 
import some kind of park boundaries, years ago, and implement mechanisms 
to make the geometry un-changeable - reasoning that any change being 
made by mappers could only be for the worse?


The idea didn't get a very warm reception then, and I don't see why 
things should have changed.


OSM is not a geodata delivery vehicle that you should abuse to publish 
third-party GIS data. I know it is tempting - so many county GIS 
departments, each with their own data collection, difficult to discover 
and use - but it is a role that OSM cannot, and should not attempt to, 
fulfil; not least because the sheer amount of such data would dwarf that 
which we have surveyed and which we can reasonably hope to care for.


If you want a geodata delivery infrastructure, set up a separate service 
- based on OSM technology if you want - and collect third-party data 
there. Mix it with human-surveyed and curated OSM at the rendering stage 
if you want.



There is no point in having this discussion again unless you're going
to bring up something new.


Exactly.


and lots of opinions. You're welcome to express
yours, but you're not welcome to claim it is or should be the ruling
opinion.


It is, and should be, the ruling opinion that data that cannot be 
sensibly edited by mappers shouldn not be in OSM. OSM is for editing, 
not for mirroring stuff that is edited elsewhere.


Bye
Frederik

--
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] parcel data in OSM

[Serge Wroclawski]

On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 11:38 PM, Russ Nelson  wrote:

> OSM is a big tent with room for lots of data and lots of opinions.

You're right Russ, that there are a lot of strong opinions in the
group, and that there's room for everyone's opinion in this matter. At
the same time, when we are talking about certain topics that have a
national or global effect, there needs to be discussion and overall
consensus.

> You're welcome to express
> yours, but you're not welcome to claim it is or should be the ruling
> opinion.

This is why I've created the Import Committee, to allow for imports to
be discussed on an individual basis, and to help create consensus for
what imports we want, and then help move those into OSM in a fast and
organized way.

- Serge

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] parcel data in OSM

[Russ Nelson]

Frederik Ramm writes:
 > I think that is more than a theory. Weren't you the one who proposed to 
 > import some kind of park boundaries, years ago, and implement mechanisms 
 > to make the geometry un-changeable - reasoning that any change being 
 > made by mappers could only be for the worse?

Yes, I did, and I was wrong. It *does* make sense to import such
boundaries into OSM and let people edit them.

-- 
--my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com
Crynwr supports open source software
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-600-8815
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  | Sheepdog   

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] parcel data in OSM

[Jason Woofenden]

On 2012-12-29 12:11AM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 28.12.2012 22:16, Jason Remillard wrote:
> >So the question is, what should the exact criteria be for including an
> >"open space" parcel in OSM. Consider some of the various types of
> >property.
> 
> I'd say anything that is observable on the ground is fine to map.

It's also valuable to map access/restrictions. I love discovering
local areas that are open to the public. Someone also pointed out
that access=yes encourages trail mappers.

-- 
Jason

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] parcel data in OSM

[Jason Woofenden]

> Un-surveyable data is a nuisance for everyone working with OSM data;

except for those mappers which it empowers by telling said mappers
where they are allowed to survey, and probably others.

> it disempowers the mapper who works with the data because they have
> to simply accept it as a fact if they cannot see it on the ground.
> 
> Adding such data to OSM sends the message to mappers: "If there's a
> mismatch between OSM data and what you see on the ground, better
> don't mess with the OSM data because surely someone has put that
> there for a reason."

Now that just doesn't make sense. If it's something that cannot be
seen on the ground then there cannot be a mismatch with what people
see on the ground.

I believe there is extremely broad agreement about including
certain kinds of lines that cannot be seen on the ground, such as
administrative boundaries. You are of course free to express your
disagreement, but please be careful not to misrepresent the general
consensus of the community.

-- 
Jason

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] parcel data in OSM

[Michael Patrick]

On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 4:00 AM,  wrote:

> But surely there must be something on the ground that tells you where
> you can go and where you can't? Else how would people have evaded being
> shot in pre-satnav times?
>

Actually, not. Sometimes there is a a 'No Trespass" or "No Hunting" sign.
But every local jurisdiction is different, and who does what where and when
can be a fairly complex situation, a combination of both statute
(laws) and custom
/ etiquette . If
folks abuse the custom, it usually becomes statute. For instance, Montana
allows public right of way down and
alongmost
flowing, non-intermittent waterways (below the high water line) for
recreational
purposes . In
Washington State, similar rules apply to access along salt water, in the
intertidal zone. New York City has privately owned public
parks,
where there has been disputes between neighbors and corporations about
access times, activities permitted, etc.

The point being, is that every locale is going to have features (and
combinations of features) to give contest to some user's activity or use.
And for that individual or community of users, if that feature(s) can't be
added or isn't present, the map is 'broken'. If my purpose is to portray
kayaking or combing routes along the washing coast, the low and high water
line are critical - not having these simple pieces of information can
actually be dangerous to the person viewing the map, because of the nature
of the shoreline. If it's hiking / snow shoeing, while 10 ft contours would
be overkill, the 500ft, 1000ft, 1500ft, 2000ft, etc. are critical because
weather warnings are broadcast according to those levels. In the urban
areas of Seattle, major areas are referred to by which 'hill' they are on.

The first line in the OSM Wiki says *"Welcome to OpenStreetMap, the project
that creates and distributes free geographic data for the world. We started
it because most maps you think of as free actually have legal or technical
restrictions on their use, holding back people from using them in creative,
productive, or unexpected ways."*

Adapting the some parts of the map content local conditions would seem to
meet this philosophy, but I have been detecting a refrain that if it
doesn't fit some current  'x-y-z' tradition / theme, go do it 'elsewhere'.

Michael Patrick
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us