On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 3:02 PM, Frederik Ramm <frede...@remote.org> wrote:
> Hi, > > On 07/29/2016 03:42 AM, Clifford Snow wrote: > > Thanks for pointing out my lapse. You are correct. I've used parcel > > boundaries for parks a number of time. > > Nonetheless (in order not to confuse the original poster) let's > reiterate that property lines themselves do not belong in OSM; only > where they can be used to deduce the bounds of something we *do* want in > OSM will they find their way into the database. We will not map > individual property lines in e.g. a residential neighbourhood (much less > import them). This feels like a usage case, somewhat specific to a far more gruanular scenario, in part of OSM's self making. At least in the US, even in residential areas, there's a high degree of difference between landuse=highway and landuse=residential. I get that land use changes over time, but, are we trying to produce a static map, or a flexible map? I'm generally on the assumption of the latter (though my examples of Oklahoma as a whole and Oregon's Metro Region plus Clark County, Washington as critters with their own quirks) seems to be fairly unique. Particularly with three-dimensional tagging in place, is there a reason to NOT handle property-lines on the ground? I mean, Tulsa Oklahoma's only something like the ~924234324 largest city in the world, by way of a number I totally pulled from deep under my tail (in reality, it's one of the largest metropolitan or micropolitan statistical areas in the US; top 100 even, out of 929 metro or micropolitan areas in the US, as defined by the census, for which Tulsa metro is 57th largest in America), but even having a statistical baseline literally good enough for government work, and usually (always?) surveyable based on identifying markings at the extreme corners...
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
