On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 5:46 PM, Jonathan Schleuss <jschle...@me.com> wrote:
> I'm kind of curious about this. Why not import those property lines? I'm > not arguing for them, because it seems like a lot of work. But I note that > in cities such as Fresno, they are in the map > <https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/36.74878/-119.71442> as > landuse=residential. What if we add all the buildings, all the trees, every > bench? Why not add property boundaries? I'm thinking 2030 here. > One issue is individual privacy. The tax rolls often show individual property owners and their contact information. While this information is, of course, publicly available, aggregating it really changes its nature. landuse=residential could possibly be assembled by aggregating neighbouring parcels, and that would probably be a valid use of property lines, just as using them to locate a cemetery, prison or other landmark would be. Note, however, that landuse does not always follow ownership (although it's a strong hint): my brother has a small area around his house that might be called 'residential', and a much larger area that would be called 'forest' (some of which in any given year is natural=scrub or natural=marsh, depending on where he's harvested). Full cadastre would probably overwhelm the servers as they stand, but that is the least important of the considerations.
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
