> From: Nathan Mills [mailto:nat...@nwacg.net] > Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Fresno castradal imports > > On 5/4/2012 4:21 PM, Ian Dees wrote: > > To the contrary, this whole conversation started because we received > > multiple complaints about this area from mappers who wanted to create > > data in this area but couldn't because of too much data. In that > > sense, this data is already handicapping the usefulness of OSM because > > it's deterring mappers from adding data to the area. > > That's a tooling problem, not a data problem. > > As an aside, parcel data is completely verifiable. Yes, it's a terrible > pain in the butt, but it is perfectly possible to look up land records > and survey the points or do it using a map. I've occasionally thought it > would be nice to have a plugin for JOSM that could turn a metes and > bounds description into a polygon.
Copying from same source (the city) doesn't make it verifiable. Going to the site and surveying it is verifying. Parcel data sometimes relates to what is on the ground, but you can't always assume that. The second image in my original message was a good example of the parcels not representing anything on the ground[1]. The imagery and the import are from about the same date. I have observed similar issues with all other parcel data I have looked at. [1]: http://maps.paulnorman.ca/imports/review/fresno2.png _______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
