[Talk-us] parcel data in OSM

[Jason Remillard]

Hello Everybody,

I don't think I was clear on this email.

This is Pepperell

http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=42.67304&lon=-71.58713&zoom=16&layers=M

In 2009, crschmidt imported a bunch of "landuse" ways, that was
derived from the old MassGIS open space layer. Pepperell is mostly
un-touched since the import, and looks like what most of the state
looks like for all new mappers. Please note that the school and
conservation lands are present from the import. The open space layer
that was used for this import was not fantastic quality. Many open
open space parcels are missing, and the accuracy in some places is
poor because it originally came from scanned in maps. I was asking
should I delete these items from the map, because they are not useful
or press ahead and attempt to fix up and fill in what what was started
in 2009.

The first 1/2 of the mail, should have been skipped or made a
different message. Please ignore it.

This is what I am currently doing.


- True conservation land, land that is owned by a private non-profit
or owned by the town that is supposed to be never developed, the
public is allowed to use it for light recreation activities, and
that's it.

KEEP - landuse=conservation, leisure=nature_reserve, area=yes on
parcel boundary.

- Town land that is open to the public, but is not developed.
Watersheds, parks, undeveloped tracks etc.

DON'T KEEP

- Playgrounds

KEEP, leisure=playground on parcel boundary.

- Public Schools

KEEP amenity=school on parcel boundary.

- Private land that is open to the public as long as people stay on
the marked trails.

DON'T KEEP - mark trails as access=yes

- Private land that has development restrictions, but is not open to the public.

DON'T KEEP

- In between, places like the "New England Forestry Foundation", that
harvest tree's, so the land is in fact a "forest", but encourages the
public use the land and who's mission is conservation.

KEEP  landuse = forest,  leisure=nature_reserve, area=yes on parcel boundary.

Thanks
Jason.

On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 4:16 PM, Jason Remillard
<remillard.jason at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am not sure this has been discussed before.
>
> We have decided that we don't want parcel data into the US OSM
> database. I agree with this decision. However, looking at the map in
> Mass, the situation is not so cut and dry. The open space layer from
> MassGIS was imported several years ago. This has encouraged people to
> map out many of the hiking trails. Surprisingly, I think that OSM is
> currently the best/most complete map of hiking trails in Mass. In fact
> many of the mappers in Mass came to OSM from the local trail
> committee's (myself included). So reality is that we do have some
> parcel data data in OSM and its inclusion has been a net positive.
>
> So the question is, what should the exact criteria be for including an
> "open space" parcel in OSM. Consider some of the various types of
> property.
>
> - True conservation land, land that is owned by a private non-profit
> or owned by the town that is supposed to be never developed, the
> public is allowed to use it for light recreation activities, and
> that's it.
> - Town land that is open to the public, but is not developed.
> Watersheds, parks, undeveloped tracks etc.
> - Playgrounds
> - Public Schools
> - Private land that is open to the public as long as people stay on
> the marked trails.
> - Private land that has development restrictions, but is not open to the public.
> - In between, places like the "New England Forestry Foundation", that
> harvest tree's, so the land is in fact a "forest", but encourages the
> public use the land and who's mission is conservation.
>
> Basically, what I have settled on is that the parcel is included if
> the land can't be developed and the public is allowed access. If
> either test is false, it does not go in.
>
> Looking for peoples thoughts on this.
>
> Thanks
> Jason.