Re: [Talk-us] Trouble with getting Superior National Forest

[brad]

I'm with Kevin, SteveA, etc,  here.   In the part of the world that I 
live, a map without national forest & BLM boundaries is very 
incomplete.   A useful OSM needs this.   The useful boundary would be 
the actual ownership boundary, not the outer potential ownership 
boundary.   Messy, I know.


On 9/1/20 7:05 AM, Kevin Kenny wrote:
On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 12:52 AM Bradley White 
mailto:theangrytom...@gmail.com>> wrote:


 If you drive into a checkerboard
area of private/public land, there are no Forest Service signs
at the
limits of private land.


In my neck of the woods, USFS owned land is signed fairly
frequently with small yellow property markers at the boundaries.


In repeated discussions about the large government-owned 
mixed-public-use land areas in the US, people have argued repeatedly 
that the boundaries are unverifiable.  We've shown references like 
https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/gwj/specialplaces/?cid=stelprdb5276999 indicating 
that the boundaries are indeed marked, and how they are marked.


Note that that reference distinguishes the proclaimed boundary - the 
large region in which the Congress has authorized the National Forest 
to exist - from the actual forest land.


Maps commonly show proclaimed national forest boundaries. However,
all land within these boundaries is not national forest land; some
is privately owned. The user is cautioned to comply with state law
and owner's rules when entering onto private land.


This has failed to satisfy. The same individuals continue to contend, 
each time the topic comes around, that the boundaries are 
unverifiable, and to cling to that contention in the face of this 
evidence. In a previous round, one of the people actually advanced the 
argument that only each individual sign, blaze, stake or cairn is 
verifiable, and that the line that they mark is not verifiable and 
ought not to be mapped.


This behaviour convinced me long ago that there is a certain 
contingent here, almost entirely comprising people who've never set 
foot in a National Forest, who ardently wish to keep US National 
Forests and similar lands (e.g., the zoo of New York State 
public-access areas, the Pennsylvania State Game Lands, and even our 
State Parks) off the map, for reasons that don't touch on 
verifiability, but throw verifiability into the pot in an effort to 
make a stronger case.

--
73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin

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


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

Re: [Talk-us] Cooper Country State Forest in Keweenaw County, MI [parcel ownership]

[Kevin Kenny]

On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 5:34 PM Doug Peterson <
dougpeter...@dpeters2.dyndns.org> wrote:

> That is made up of two properties. The southern, larger square is owned by
> Thomas & Jane Griffith. The northern, smaller square is owned by the John &
> Jane Griffith. The other square to the west of that, not included, is owned
> by John & Jane Griffith. That is just ownership. That does not say whether
> is any sort of "easement" (possibly the wrong choice of word) that could
> cause it to be included.
>
> This can be referenced from Landgrid.
>
>
> https://landgrid.com/us/mi/keweenaw/allouez#b=none=property=/us/mi/keweenaw/27
>
>
> https://landgrid.com/us/mi/keweenaw/allouez#b=none=property=/us/mi/keweenaw/15
>
>
Since it's showing up there, and it isn't showing up in the DNR Parcels
data set (which shows conservation easements as well as land owned in fee
simple), we have two confirmations that it's indeed private.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Unintentional improvements in OSM data influencing / improving other databases

[Kevin Kenny]

On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 2:48 PM Joseph Eisenberg 
wrote:

> But if we are talking about legal parcel boundaries or legal protected
> area boundaries, or administrative limits, then it's not at all possible
> for OpenStreetMap users to resolve these conflicts in our database alone.
>
> What needs to happen is bringing this information back to the local
> government and asking them to correct the data and provide an
> authoritative, public-domain source for everyone to use.
>
> It's no good if OpenStreetMap has a more "accurate" boundary line which
> follows a physical feature like a ridgeline, if the legal definition is
> different. Determining this might require lawyers getting involved.
>
> Now certainly OpenStreetMap data, which can include features like
> ridgelines, waterways, roads and paths, which are often used to determine
> historic land ownership boundaries, can be useful in determining if
> existing databases are accurate and precise. But unless those outside
> databases are corrected, our data will be inaccurate as well, when it comes
> to legal issues like boundaries.
>

You are labouring under a misconception that there is some authoritative
database somewhere in the halls of government. There simply is not.

In the US legal system, the verbal description of a property in a deed
takes absolute precedence over any map, and the witness marks in the field
*are* the boundary. Recovering and refreshing the marks is a big part of
what a land surveyor does.

If there is a dispute over a boundary,  the courts can resolve it. In the
cases we're talking about, the courts will not weigh in because there is no
case or controversy before them.

In no case is _any_ government GIS system in most states[1] of the US an
authoritative reference for a property line, and there is nothing
resembling a Torrens title system. Even in the ten or so states that
maintain a registry of land plans as well as titles, the verbal description
generally takes priority over the map. The registries are more about
identifying parcels, and tracking who owns them (and holds easements,
liens, deeds of trust, and the like) than they are about specifying the
metes and bounds of the parcels.

One reason that my uncle's feud with his neighbour could go on so long was
that the formal description of the property was something like 'SW/4 of
NW/4 of Section XX, Lot YY, Great Lot ZZ, Division 1 of the Minisink Patent
of 1704.  Searching that sort of title is like writing _Roots_!
Fortunately, when my brother and the neighbour decided to bury the hatchet,
a forester with a metal detector was able to recover not only corner
monuments, but the remains of a barbed-wire fence - so there was an obvious
place to strike the line.

Even for public land, there's no single authoritative source.  In New York,
for instance, there was a legal dispute about land ownership between
private landholders and the state that went back to the 1860s that required
a statewide constitutional referendum in 2013 to authorize the settlement.
https://www.wamc.org/post/new-york-settles-adirondack-land-dispute . (Yes,
the place is named 'Township 40'.) When this sort of title dispute can
languish for 150 years, how could there be an authoritative reference?

There are cases where I've left inconsistent boundaries in OSM
intentionally. In at least one of those places, I successfully recovered
monuments at both of the inconsistent corners. That one's beyond my pay
grade and will be an issue for the courts if there's ever a dispute.
(Unlikely, both sides of the line are protected forest land, belonging to
different authorities.)

In typically American-capitalist fashion, in lieu of state registration, we
have a privatized system of title insurance
.

[Notes]

[1] There's limited Torrens title in Colorado, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois,
Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, North Carolina, Ohio and Washington.
Several of these states are in the process of abolishing it.

In New York, Torrens title was abolished in 2000, and there have been no
new land title registrations since. Even before then, it was optional,
complex and expensive. (I bought my house in 1993 and got a warranty deed,
not a certificate of registered title.) There are still some landowners
still have a Certificate of Title rather than a deed. There are only a
handful of Torrens properties in most counties. It is most common in
Suffolk County, and there are several in Kings and Rockland counties. It's
now considered rather a blemish; many title insurers won't accept a
certificate of title and need to do an extended search to protect against
claims of fraud against the certified title. It's a mess.

Illinois has abolished its Torrens system entirely, but again, there are
issues surrounding legacy title, so the registry must remain accessible.

Torrens title has been unpopular because it is vulnerable to fraudulent
deeds and has been abused

Re: [Talk-us] Cooper Country State Forest in Keweenaw County, MI [parcel ownership]

[Doug Peterson]

That is made up of two properties. The southern, larger square is owned by 
Thomas & Jane Griffith. The northern, smaller square is owned by the John & 
Jane Griffith. The other square to the west of that, not included, is owned by 
John & Jane Griffith. That is just ownership. That does not say whether is any 
sort of "easement" (possibly the wrong choice of word) that could cause it to 
be included.

This can be referenced from Landgrid.

https://landgrid.com/us/mi/keweenaw/allouez#b=none=property=/us/mi/keweenaw/27

https://landgrid.com/us/mi/keweenaw/allouez#b=none=property=/us/mi/keweenaw/15


Thank you,

Doug Peterson

talk-us-requ...@openstreetmap.org wrote ..
> Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2020 19:26:20 +0200
> From: Frederik Ramm 
> To: "talk-us@openstreetmap.org Openstreetmap"
>   
> Subject: [Talk-us] Cooper Country State Forest in Keweenaw County, MI
> Message-ID: <4d1f12fa-41f4-12ab-f0c5-48f532350...@remote.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
> Hi,
>
> the DWG has been asked to remove this bit of land
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/146418027#map=13/47.3306/-88.4441
>
> from the "Cooper Country State Forest" protected area since it has been
> purchased from the state by private individuals in 2006 and "the recent
> plat books show this".
>
> I have been unable to find an online resource to corroborate this claim.
> Googling for "plat books" turned up some very pretty scans of 1800's
> surveyor records ;) Perhaps someone more knowledgeable in the US public
> records landscape can help?
>
> Bye
> Frederik
>
> --
> Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Cooper Country State Forest in Keweenaw County, MI

[Karson Sommer]

https://mgis.coleman-engineering.com/web/ shows the parcel in question
being privately owned.

On Wed, Sep 2, 2020, 12:27 PM Frederik Ramm  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> the DWG has been asked to remove this bit of land
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/146418027#map=13/47.3306/-88.4441
>
> from the "Cooper Country State Forest" protected area since it has been
> purchased from the state by private individuals in 2006 and "the recent
> plat books show this".
>
> I have been unable to find an online resource to corroborate this claim.
> Googling for "plat books" turned up some very pretty scans of 1800's
> surveyor records ;) Perhaps someone more knowledgeable in the US public
> records landscape can help?
>
> Bye
> Frederik
>
> --
> Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Cooper Country State Forest in Keweenaw County, MI

[Frederik Ramm]

Correct, sorry, my mistake!

On 9/2/20 20:02, Kerry Irons wrote:
> It's Copper Country, not Cooper Country. 
> 
> Kerry Irons 
> 
> On Wed, Sep 2, 2020, 1:55 PM Kevin Kenny  > wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 1:47 PM Joseph Eisenberg
> mailto:joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
> My goodness, look at that monstrosity:
> 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1976405#map=8/46.459/-87.627
> 
> How can we claim that all of these patches of state-owned land
> constitute a single OpenStreetMap feature?
> 
> 
> Because they share a name, share a management plan, are managed as a
> whole, are signed alike, enjoy the same protection status, and are
> popularly thought of as a unit.
> 
> The US has some untidy and diffuse features. Some of those untidy
> and diffuse features are important to those who live around them,
> earn their livings by them, or recreate in them. Don't demand that
> we refrain from mapping them because they fail to conform with your
> mental model of the world as it ought to be. It comes across as
> saying, "My model is fine, fix your country!" I can't fix it, in any
> reasonable timeframe at least. I'm constrained to mapping the
> country I have.
> 
> -- 
> 73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org 
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
> 
> 
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
> 

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

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

Re: [Talk-us] Unintentional improvements in OSM data influencing / improving other databases

[Joseph Eisenberg]

RE: "Many government and agency data sources are in conflict with each
other over the same information; OSM can serve to provide "resolved"
versions that are confirmed with ground observation where required."

Similar thoughts have been expressed previously in this thread.

But if we are talking about legal parcel boundaries or legal protected area
boundaries, or administrative limits, then it's not at all possible for
OpenStreetMap users to resolve these conflicts in our database alone.

What needs to happen is bringing this information back to the local
government and asking them to correct the data and provide an
authoritative, public-domain source for everyone to use.

It's no good if OpenStreetMap has a more "accurate" boundary line which
follows a physical feature like a ridgeline, if the legal definition is
different. Determining this might require lawyers getting involved.

Now certainly OpenStreetMap data, which can include features like
ridgelines, waterways, roads and paths, which are often used to determine
historic land ownership boundaries, can be useful in determining if
existing databases are accurate and precise. But unless those outside
databases are corrected, our data will be inaccurate as well, when it comes
to legal issues like boundaries.

- Joseph Eisenberg

On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 11:39 AM Bradley White 
wrote:

> I echo this sentiment exactly as having taken place in California and in
>> my experiences with OSM.  This is most certainly a longer-term endeavor
>> (over several, even many years), but improvements in alignments between
>> data components which have been entered into OSM from my County GIS,
>> GreenInfo.org's publishing its "CPAD" (California Protected Area Database,
>> published semi-annually, see our wiki) and other sources HAVE INDEED
>> resulted in data improvements:  OSM influences CPAD, resulting in data
>> improvements, CPAD influenced County GIS data, resulting in data
>> improvements, later versions of these (County GIS and CPAD) data influenced
>> OSM all over again, resulting in data improvements...and upward, upward and
>> upward the spiral of more accurate, better-aligning data goes:  both
>> private and public.  OSM gets the results, so do others.  Win-win.  Taking
>> OSM out of the equation by asserting "these data don't belong in OSM" stops
>> this improvement pipeline (wholly unintentional on my part, but certainly
>> noticed) in its tracks.  (Yes, some data belong in OSM, some don't).
>
>
> I'm in strong agreement here. OSM provides a unique platform to synthesize
> multiple data sources in combination with field observation to produce
> something potentially better than any of these single sources are on their
> own. Trying to produce an accurate and detailed map of the entire US
> strictly off of field observation and satellite imagery is simply
> infesible, especially in remote, unpopulated areas. Many government and
> agency data sources are in conflict with each other over the same
> information; OSM can serve to provide "resolved" versions that are
> confirmed with ground observation where required.
>
> I agree that we shouldn't be importing parcel data wholesale, as-is. But,
> if real-life accuracy is important, the fact that much of the information
> we are trying to add in OSM (protected areas, land use, access
> restrictions) is differentiated along parcel boundaries is simply
> unavoidable to me. If this information is in the public domain and
> generally corroborates what is on the ground, so long as the data is worked
> through manually to confirm accuracy, I don't see the problem with using
> parcel information as a piece of the "puzzle" in producing an accurate and
> informative map.
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Unintentional improvements in OSM data influencing / improving other databases

[Bradley White]

>
> I echo this sentiment exactly as having taken place in California and in
> my experiences with OSM.  This is most certainly a longer-term endeavor
> (over several, even many years), but improvements in alignments between
> data components which have been entered into OSM from my County GIS,
> GreenInfo.org's publishing its "CPAD" (California Protected Area Database,
> published semi-annually, see our wiki) and other sources HAVE INDEED
> resulted in data improvements:  OSM influences CPAD, resulting in data
> improvements, CPAD influenced County GIS data, resulting in data
> improvements, later versions of these (County GIS and CPAD) data influenced
> OSM all over again, resulting in data improvements...and upward, upward and
> upward the spiral of more accurate, better-aligning data goes:  both
> private and public.  OSM gets the results, so do others.  Win-win.  Taking
> OSM out of the equation by asserting "these data don't belong in OSM" stops
> this improvement pipeline (wholly unintentional on my part, but certainly
> noticed) in its tracks.  (Yes, some data belong in OSM, some don't).


I'm in strong agreement here. OSM provides a unique platform to synthesize
multiple data sources in combination with field observation to produce
something potentially better than any of these single sources are on their
own. Trying to produce an accurate and detailed map of the entire US
strictly off of field observation and satellite imagery is simply
infesible, especially in remote, unpopulated areas. Many government and
agency data sources are in conflict with each other over the same
information; OSM can serve to provide "resolved" versions that are
confirmed with ground observation where required.

I agree that we shouldn't be importing parcel data wholesale, as-is. But,
if real-life accuracy is important, the fact that much of the information
we are trying to add in OSM (protected areas, land use, access
restrictions) is differentiated along parcel boundaries is simply
unavoidable to me. If this information is in the public domain and
generally corroborates what is on the ground, so long as the data is worked
through manually to confirm accuracy, I don't see the problem with using
parcel information as a piece of the "puzzle" in producing an accurate and
informative map.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Cooper Country State Forest in Keweenaw County, MI

[Kerry Irons]

It's Copper Country, not Cooper Country.

Kerry Irons

On Wed, Sep 2, 2020, 1:55 PM Kevin Kenny  wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 1:47 PM Joseph Eisenberg <
> joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> My goodness, look at that monstrosity:
>>
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1976405#map=8/46.459/-87.627
>>
>> How can we claim that all of these patches of state-owned land constitute
>> a single OpenStreetMap feature?
>>
>
> Because they share a name, share a management plan, are managed as a
> whole, are signed alike, enjoy the same protection status, and are
> popularly thought of as a unit.
>
> The US has some untidy and diffuse features. Some of those untidy and
> diffuse features are important to those who live around them, earn their
> livings by them, or recreate in them. Don't demand that we refrain from
> mapping them because they fail to conform with your mental model of the
> world as it ought to be. It comes across as saying, "My model is fine, fix
> your country!" I can't fix it, in any reasonable timeframe at least. I'm
> constrained to mapping the country I have.
>
> --
> 73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Cooper Country State Forest in Keweenaw County, MI

[Kevin Kenny]

On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 1:47 PM Joseph Eisenberg 
wrote:

> My goodness, look at that monstrosity:
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1976405#map=8/46.459/-87.627
>
> How can we claim that all of these patches of state-owned land constitute
> a single OpenStreetMap feature?
>

Because they share a name, share a management plan, are managed as a whole,
are signed alike, enjoy the same protection status, and are popularly
thought of as a unit.

The US has some untidy and diffuse features. Some of those untidy and
diffuse features are important to those who live around them, earn their
livings by them, or recreate in them. Don't demand that we refrain from
mapping them because they fail to conform with your mental model of the
world as it ought to be. It comes across as saying, "My model is fine, fix
your country!" I can't fix it, in any reasonable timeframe at least. I'm
constrained to mapping the country I have.

-- 
73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Cooper Country State Forest in Keweenaw County, MI

[Joseph Eisenberg]

My goodness, look at that monstrosity:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1976405#map=8/46.459/-87.627

How can we claim that all of these patches of state-owned land constitute a
single OpenStreetMap feature?

-- Joseph Eisenberg

On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 10:27 AM Frederik Ramm  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> the DWG has been asked to remove this bit of land
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/146418027#map=13/47.3306/-88.4441
>
> from the "Cooper Country State Forest" protected area since it has been
> purchased from the state by private individuals in 2006 and "the recent
> plat books show this".
>
> I have been unable to find an online resource to corroborate this claim.
> Googling for "plat books" turned up some very pretty scans of 1800's
> surveyor records ;) Perhaps someone more knowledgeable in the US public
> records landscape can help?
>
> Bye
> Frederik
>
> --
> Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Talk-us Digest, Vol 153, Issue 22 OSM-US local chapter application (Joost Schouppe [OSMF secretary])

[Maggie Cawley]

>
> Hi All,



> Community consultation for the OpenStreetMap US application to become a local
> chapter of OSMF  [OSMF secretary])>ends on September 5. It would be great to hear from
> more community members, so if you have time and interest please post to the
> wiki, the talk-us list or the osfm mailing list!


Thanks!
Maggie

> --
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2020 11:07:01 +0200
> From: "Joost Schouppe [OSMF secretary]" 
> To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: [Talk-us] OSM-US local chapter application
> Message-ID:
> <
> cah1mrign0xhbh-ccfr0gvd4kkyd_ewfp8symusvuw0_4xqi...@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Hi all,
>
>
> You may be aware that *OpenStreetMap US, Inc.* has applied to become an
> official Local Chapter of the OpenStreetMap Foundation. As part of the
> application process, we would like to ask you, *the local mapping
> community*
> how you feel about this. Do you support this application? Do you have any
> questions, comments or concerns?
>
>
> You can find all the information about this Local Chapter application on
> the OSMF website:
>
> https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Local_Chapters/Applications/United_States
>
>
> We will close this round of discussion two weeks from now (Sept 5th 2020).
> You can reply to this thread, send a message to board (at)
> osmfoundation.org,
> or use the wiki talk page here
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Foundation/Local_Chapters/Applications/United_States
> I am looking forward to hearing your responses.
>
> We will also share this message on Slack and the forum.
>
>
> Thank you to the OpenStreetMap US team for this submission.
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Joost Schouppe
> *Secretary*
> *OpenStreetMap Foundation*
>
> Name & Registered Office:
>
> *OpenStreetMap Foundation*
> *St John’s Innovation Centre*
> *Cowley Road*
> *Cambridge*
> *CB4 0WS*
> *United Kingdom*
>
> *A company limited by guarantee, registered in England and
> WalesRegistration No. 05912761*
>
> Joost Schouppe
> *Secretary*
> *OpenStreetMap Foundation*
>
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20200821/1227d68a/attachment-0001.htm
> >
>
> -
> 
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

[Talk-us] Cooper Country State Forest in Keweenaw County, MI

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

the DWG has been asked to remove this bit of land

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/146418027#map=13/47.3306/-88.4441

from the "Cooper Country State Forest" protected area since it has been
purchased from the state by private individuals in 2006 and "the recent
plat books show this".

I have been unable to find an online resource to corroborate this claim.
Googling for "plat books" turned up some very pretty scans of 1800's
surveyor records ;) Perhaps someone more knowledgeable in the US public
records landscape can help?

Bye
Frederik

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

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

[Talk-us] Unintentional improvements in OSM data influencing / improving other databases

[stevea]

On September 1, 2020 at 8:07:46 AM PDT, Kevin Kenny  
wrote:
> 
> In many of these cases OSM has an opportunity to improve the government data. 
>  A mapper can analyze the conflict, sort out the different data sources, 
> perhaps visit the site in the field, and produce a result that is more 
> accurate than any of the government data sets. It's been pretty quiet, but I 
> know that there some corrections from OSM have flowed back into some of the 
> government data sets that I use.

Starting a new thread.

I echo this sentiment exactly as having taken place in California and in my 
experiences with OSM.  This is most certainly a longer-term endeavor (over 
several, even many years), but improvements in alignments between data 
components which have been entered into OSM from my County GIS, GreenInfo.org's 
publishing its "CPAD" (California Protected Area Database, published 
semi-annually, see our wiki) and other sources HAVE INDEED resulted in data 
improvements:  OSM influences CPAD, resulting in data improvements, CPAD 
influenced County GIS data, resulting in data improvements, later versions of 
these (County GIS and CPAD) data influenced OSM all over again, resulting in 
data improvements...and upward, upward and upward the spiral of more accurate, 
better-aligning data goes:  both private and public.  OSM gets the results, so 
do others.  Win-win.  Taking OSM out of the equation by asserting "these data 
don't belong in OSM" stops this improvement pipeline (wholly unintentional on 
my part, but certainly noticed) in its tracks.  (Yes, some data belong in OSM, 
some don't).

This is a seldom-talked about real benefit OSM offers to both non-profit based 
data aggregators (like GreenInfo and their CPAD) and public ones (like County 
GIS departments).  Yes, a relatively high-degree of accuracy and careful 
mapping, skilled volunteers in OSM (who likely don't have the credentials of 
professional surveyors, but who are aware of basics like monument markers, 
"metes and bounds" in deeds and the like) ARE required.  So, even volunteer 
"citizen mappers" can go a long distance at improving data, simply by doing 
solid mapping in OSM.  And by remaining a database of high quality and careful 
curation, OSM earns the respect of other GIS professionals (public and private) 
who (over the longer-term) find the puzzle-pieces fitting together better.  The 
examples are numerous, thank you Kevin for providing several.

OSM will likely never become "authoritative" in the sense a cadastral database 
does for tax or land survey purposes, but as we keep our quality high, keep our 
mapping careful and pay attention to things like survey markers (we do), other 
mapping professionals will continue to look to us as "worthy enough" to include 
as a layer on their systems, for example.  OSM does not have the goal of being 
so "authoritative," nor should it in my opinion, but speaking personally, I do 
strive to map as accurately as I possibly can.  Our data being widely and 
deeply respected is a great result OSM can be proud to continue.

I can't count the number of times I've (more recently) heard from Land Trust 
mapping professionals, local public GIS professionals, non-profit GIS 
professionals and more "OSM is a fantastic and amazing resource, there is 
nothing else like it and the world of mapping is a far richer place because it 
exists."  (Or something very much like that).

Bottom line:  please don't scoff at the possibility that your careful and 
accurate mapping might influence "official" or "authoritative" GIS data.  It 
can, it has, it does and it will continue to do so.

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