Hi, On 07/29/2016 11:46 PM, Jonathan Schleuss 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.
Yes, sadly some imports have been done in the past without consultation and it will take some time to get rid of them. > What if we add all the buildings, all the trees, > every bench? Why not add property boundaries? I'm thinking 2030 here. If there's a fence on the boundary, you can map the fence. Or any other physical marker, if you so desire. Mapping in-visible boundaries is a bad idea because it runs against our desire to have things verifiable on the ground - this is one reason that keeps us safe from a whole class of edit wars where people disagree about something that cannot be proven. We make an exception from that rule for admin boundaries because their usefulness is so high that it overrules the problem (usually) not being visible on the ground. OpenStreetMap is, mostly, a project driven by people who contribute data that they survey. Data imports can occasionally help but they're not the mainstay of OSM. A data set of parcel boundaries can easily be displayed on top of OSM, or integrated into your rendering stack if you need these boundaries, but it doesn't make much sense in OSM because it will usually not be curated by individual mappers. It would just sit there, being replaced by a new import once a year (or not) - OSM would be abused as a data transport for third party data. 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
