[Imports-us] NJ Landuse import (NJ2002LULC)

stevea steveaOSM at softworkers.com
Wed Aug 21 17:50:00 UTC 2013

Serge said:

>I'm not convinced that landuse=residential and landuse=industrial,
>etc. are valuable data for OSM to have. We could certainly provide
>this data for rendering purposes, but I don't see the great value in
>it being in OSM.

Serge, do you mean residential and industrial areas IN THIS IMPORT do 
not convince you as valuable data for OSM to have, or do you mean 
that residential and industrial areas are not valuable / don't belong 
in OSM at all?

If the former, OK, that is one particular aspect of the NJ import 
that adds weight to your disagreement that this import or components 
should be in OSM.  But if the latter (as your sentence structure 
seems to imply), I wholly disagree with you:  "zoning" (landuse) tags 
are quite valuable in a map like OSM.  Landuse, while still confused 
with landcover (another large issue, still slowly being untangled) is 
a large part of what people find highly useful when they look at the 
map:  it describes humanity's use of the land as surely and 
profoundly as our highway networks, giving shape and context to areas 
through which streets (OSM's middle name) pass.

Usually, even often, I am glad of your "4+ years of active 
contributions and deep involvement with the OSM technical community" 
(as I hope others are of mine).  But on this point, if you really 
mean that landuse tagging in general is superfluous or not valuable, 
I respectfully disagree with you.

Oh, and not just to Serge, but to everybody:  "data" are plural.  As 
in "these data...great value in them."

On the more general topic:  I think it correct that discussion 
continue (here) between the original author of the import and others 
who find specific problems with the data.  Make the discussion an 
example of the sort of civil, reasoned back-and-forth that OSM can 
and should have before data with which the community disagrees is 


More information about the Imports-us mailing list