<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">2017-10-16 14:05 GMT+02:00 Christoph Hormann <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:osm@imagico.de" target="_blank">osm@imagico.de</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class="">On Monday 16 October 2017, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:<br>
><br>
> I think we don't map individual land ownership or land use rights<br>
</span>> because of privacy concerns [...]<br>
<br>
No, we don't map land ownership because it is usually not verifiable<br>
which is partly due to privacy concerns from side of the cadastral<br>
legislations. In Germany for example land ownership records are not<br>
public, they may only be viewed by parties with a justified interest.<br>
<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>if it isn't verifiable there's no question, but if it is verifiable because the border or its description was published (not the case here according to Dave), then we could map it.<br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
This is of no relevance here of course, landuse=industrial is simply<br>
factually wrong because most of the land is not actually used for<br>
industrial purposes.</blockquote></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">+1, I agree, although landuse isn't perfectly defined on a formal level to exclude such tagging (e.g. by using vocabulary like "primary use of land", which wouldn't make it wrong here).</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">Cheers,</div><div class="gmail_extra">Martin<br></div></div>