Here I weigh-in with what I believe to be a crucial distinction between "cadastral data which are privately owned" and "data which can be characterized as cadastral, but which are publicly owned and are often used for recreation, hiking and similar human activities."
Joseph, many others in OSM, I and wide consensus agree that the former (private cadastral data, especially down to the level of individual parcels) generally do not belong in OSM. I believe we also agree there are widely-acknowledged exceptions to this, such as when polygons tagged landuse=* denote where a farm is distinct from a forested area, or where residential vs. commercial vs. industrial areas clearly follow property lines up to an edge of "difference," especially as they better characterize what we might call "zoning" (of larger areas like "neighborhoods" or "downtown's shopping district" or "the industrial zone where auto parts are manufactured by numerous industrial companies on numerous parcels") instead of individual parcels. If I am incorrect in any of my assumptions, I welcome adjustment or correction. However, with PUBLIC "cadastral data" which define national parks, large areas used for human recreation (such as state parks, county parks, national forests and similar public lands), I don't think there is any argument whatsoever that OSM wishes to map these. Yet what Joseph characterizes as "cadastral data" precisely define these. Please, let's dispense with this apparent (but not actual) contradiction: public lands belong in OSM denoted as such, and an acknowledged best method to do this is to map their boundary as the data where they are "owned by the public." What we discuss here is the particular (peculiar?) example of national forests in the USA, where there are effectively "two legal boundaries, one actual ownership, another potential ownership." We absolutely should agree (here? now?) on which of these two (or both) we enter into OSM. The current situation of data in our map is scattered between the two and still confused in the minds of many mappers who do or wish to enter these data. Since we agree they should be entered, let's better discuss how we enter them "properly" (by achieving consensus) and watch as they render according to our hammered-out-here agreements on how this should and will best take place. We really are getting closer to doing this, thanks to excellent discussion here. SteveA _______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
