[Talk-us] Anyone ever talked about adding more Land Ownership data to OSM?

[Mike Thompson]

Some thoughts supporting the inclusion of this data:

It seems that it is just about as unlikely that state, county and city
boundaries will be improved, but they are in OSM.

Some improvement may be possible, as the boundaries to Federal land are
often demarcated with signs or survey monuments.  In addition, there is
value in making these boundaries consistent with other elements in OSM,
such as the aforementioned county boundaries.  For example, if one knows
that the BLM land and the county share the same boundary, they can be
"snapped" together.

If I am a data user, for example, if I were to start a website dedicated to
hiking maps and I had to choose between proprietary data and OSM, the
completeness of the data is something that I would consider.   Sure, I
could get the BLM data myself, and add it into my web maps, but that is
just one more step, and the BLM data is not likely to be consistent with
the OSM data (see above), thus making a messy map.

Mike


On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 7:34 PM, Jeff Meyer <jeff at gwhat.org> wrote:

> Isn't that true of all data in the database?
>
> On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 6:16 PM, Ian Dees <ian.dees at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 7:52 PM, Paul Johnson <baloo at ursamundi.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On Monday, January 7, 2013, Ian Dees wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 6:53 PM, Nathan Mixter <nmixter at gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> It would be awesome to include the land ownership data from BLM
>>>>> especially if we could do it for the whole US. Unfortunately that is
>>>>> probably not something that people would want to add because of the
>>>>> conflicts with other data. I wonder if we could include it on a limited
>>>>> basis or only include certain features.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We just had this conversation a couple threads ago. This sort of land
>>>> ownership border doesn't really belong in OSM because we can't improve it.
>>>> It's already in OSM because some people imported the BLM data so they could
>>>> see national park boundaries.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Just because we can't improve it doesn't mean it can't improve the map.
>>>
>>
>> I disagree. If we can't improve it then the only thing it can do is sit
>> in the database and become wrong.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Talk-us mailing list
>> Talk-us at openstreetmap.org
>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Jeff Meyer
> Global World History Atlas
> www.gwhat.org
> jeff at gwhat.org
> 206-676-2347
> www.openstreetmap.org/user/jeffmeyer
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20130107/60938e2a/attachment.html>