On September 1, 2020 at 8:07:46 AM PDT, Kevin Kenny <kevin.b.ke...@gmail.com> wrote: > > In many of these cases OSM has an opportunity to improve the government data. > A mapper can analyze the conflict, sort out the different data sources, > perhaps visit the site in the field, and produce a result that is more > accurate than any of the government data sets. It's been pretty quiet, but I > know that there some corrections from OSM have flowed back into some of the > government data sets that I use.
Starting a new thread. I echo this sentiment exactly as having taken place in California and in my experiences with OSM. This is most certainly a longer-term endeavor (over several, even many years), but improvements in alignments between data components which have been entered into OSM from my County GIS, GreenInfo.org's publishing its "CPAD" (California Protected Area Database, published semi-annually, see our wiki) and other sources HAVE INDEED resulted in data improvements: OSM influences CPAD, resulting in data improvements, CPAD influenced County GIS data, resulting in data improvements, later versions of these (County GIS and CPAD) data influenced OSM all over again, resulting in data improvements...and upward, upward and upward the spiral of more accurate, better-aligning data goes: both private and public. OSM gets the results, so do others. Win-win. Taking OSM out of the equation by asserting "these data don't belong in OSM" stops this improvement pipeline (wholly unintentional on my part, but certainly noticed) in its tracks. (Yes, some data belong in OSM, some don't). This is a seldom-talked about real benefit OSM offers to both non-profit based data aggregators (like GreenInfo and their CPAD) and public ones (like County GIS departments). Yes, a relatively high-degree of accuracy and careful mapping, skilled volunteers in OSM (who likely don't have the credentials of professional surveyors, but who are aware of basics like monument markers, "metes and bounds" in deeds and the like) ARE required. So, even volunteer "citizen mappers" can go a long distance at improving data, simply by doing solid mapping in OSM. And by remaining a database of high quality and careful curation, OSM earns the respect of other GIS professionals (public and private) who (over the longer-term) find the puzzle-pieces fitting together better. The examples are numerous, thank you Kevin for providing several. OSM will likely never become "authoritative" in the sense a cadastral database does for tax or land survey purposes, but as we keep our quality high, keep our mapping careful and pay attention to things like survey markers (we do), other mapping professionals will continue to look to us as "worthy enough" to include as a layer on their systems, for example. OSM does not have the goal of being so "authoritative," nor should it in my opinion, but speaking personally, I do strive to map as accurately as I possibly can. Our data being widely and deeply respected is a great result OSM can be proud to continue. I can't count the number of times I've (more recently) heard from Land Trust mapping professionals, local public GIS professionals, non-profit GIS professionals and more "OSM is a fantastic and amazing resource, there is nothing else like it and the world of mapping is a far richer place because it exists." (Or something very much like that). Bottom line: please don't scoff at the possibility that your careful and accurate mapping might influence "official" or "authoritative" GIS data. It can, it has, it does and it will continue to do so. SteveA _______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
