> I think imports (taking a large number of objects
from an external
> source and placing them in OSM all at once) is bad
for the community.
> Most of you have heard me say this before. I still have no hard
> evidence to prove it. There is also no hard counter-evidence. At
> best, imported da
Most recent USGS topos show that area as water features.
NAIP 2012 shows water there; looks like wetlands restoration maybe?
--Brett
Brett Lord-Castillo
Information Systems Designer/GIS Programmer
St. Louis County Police
Office of Emergency Management
14847 Ladue Bluffs Crossing Drive
Chesterfield,
"Because that information is useless in OSM. It was out of
date the second
someone ran the upload script and unless the city of
Fresno decides to
switch to OSM for their official tax plat information
(which I'm pretty
sure would be illegal in most jurisdictions), no one in
the community can
improve
"OSM is not a giant collection bowl for data ("oh look I've found a scrap of
data on my city's web site, let's upload that to OSM so that it don't get
lost!!!").
OSM is a giant *editor*. OSM is for *editing* data."
I strongly disagree. OSM is for the user, not for the editor. OSM -is- a giant
"Because the nature of cadastral data is that there is a data owner and it is
very rarely OSM. That data owner has created the data out of thin air. There's
absolutely no correlation between something on the ground and the information
in the dataset.
OSM is built upon the fact that anyone can
5 matches
Mail list logo
