On 02/09/2015, Colin Smale <colin.sm...@xs4all.nl> wrote: > I see two separate issues getting mixed up: firstly, what types of data > "belong" in OSM as a matter of principle, and secondly what quality > criteria would apply. Clearly for the second point the data needs to be > suitably licensed (if it is externally sourced) and it needs to be > verifiable so "Joe Public" without any form of privileged access can > verify its correctness. These are clearly principles which have existed > in OSM for a long time. But a statement that certain whole categories of > data do not belong in OSM *because* it sometimes might not be easily > verifiable, is going a bit far.
Saying that land property has no place in OSM is just a conclusion that comes from the observation that this kind of data generally poses big chalenges to verifyability and corrrectness, and that its usefullness in osm is limited because ownership is one thing where you have no choice to use the official authoritative source. If there's somewhere in the world where those concerns are not valid, then go on and map properrty data there. Again, do you know of any property data in osm ? What's the tagging schema ? The principle of "what data belongs in OSM" is about the propeties of that data, not what kind of data it is. But as it happens, a given kind of data usually has the same properties, so "this kind of data doesn't belong in OSM" is a usefull simplification. _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
