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

Jeff Meyer jeff at gwhat.org
Tue Jan 8 05:40:08 GMT 2013


My apologies - my real point was that it doesn't seem that rules are being
applied equally across different data sets.

For example, requiring that any data imported into OSM have a lifetime
maintenance plan seems like something that we don't require of *any* OSM
data entry. Most data is entered with the *hope* and belief that others
will come along and fix it.

All of the rules about observability and verifiability apply to country and
state borders, as well, as Mike states, but we include them and somehow
improve them.

Neighborhoods are not a relevant comparison. There can be defined boundary
neighborhoods and human perceptions of those boundaries, and the two can
have different outlines - they are both "correct."

The information discussed in the other thread - local parcel information -
is on a completely different scale as this BLM data. Does that mean it's
different? I don't know. Possibly. Some of the arguments (not all) against
including parcel data were related to data density. I doubt those apply in
the case of huge.

The inclusion of this information - as a few others have mentioned, is
extremely helpful when going across doubletrack and unimproved roads in the
American west. Last year, I road a mountain bike from Durango, CO to Moab,
UT with a group of friends. Whether we were in private, BLM, FS, or state
land made quite a difference in what we could and could not do off the
roads, which in turn could have helped us with route planning. And, we
could have "improved" the data by tracking POIs at the boundaries of these
lands - they're usually pretty well marked.

I'd love to see the BLM data included. But, whether we want it or not,
shouldn't we be fair in discussing reasons for or against this data or
explicit in our exceptions?

- Jeff


On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 8:19 PM, Serge Wroclawski <emacsen at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 9:34 PM, Jeff Meyer <jeff at gwhat.org> wrote:
> > Isn't that true of all data in the database?
>
> OSM is built on surveyors doing surveys. That is we have people who go
> out and walk around with GPSes, or maps, and manually survey what's on
> the ground. Then when a second person goes to the same area, they are
> validatidating the original data. Maybe the second person has more
> accurate data in some part, or maybe there's been a change, etc. We've
> shown in studies that the number of mappers increases both the data
> density and the data accuracy over time.
>
> But this only works with ground observable data.
>
> Land owership isn't ground observable. Sometimes a feature, such as a
> fence is, but the actual land owership isn't. Therefore, it's not
> possible for a second observer to come in and provide either
> validation or updates to the data.
>
> Additionally, land ownership changes frequently.
>
> Lastly, there is only one authoritative source for this data.
>
> To recap: Land ownership data is only available from the government,
> which is the one authoritative source of this data. It's not something
> that the "crowdsourcing" model lends itself well to. And it changes
> rapidly.
>
> So what Ian has suggested, and I agree with him on, is that this data
> is a poor candidate for inclusion into the crowdsourced OSM data.
>
> That doesn't mean it can't be used alongside it. This land ownership
> data (assuming it's licensed properly) can be rendered on the same map
> as OSM data (there are many examples of using TileMill to mix data
> sources in just this way) and if the data is imported into a database,
> there can be queries made against the two sets, so it would be
> possible to see the land owner for a given POI, for example.
>
> This is the best of both worlds. It keeps the OSM focusing on its
> strength, and makes it easy to stay current and precise on the land
> ownership dataset.
>
>
> Someone else brought up boundries, so let's discuss boundries.
>
> Boundaries in OSM, especially in the US, have been an ongoing and
> constant problem. Boundaries are places where people are fiddling all
> the time, trying to get the exact "levels" right. In addition, much of
> the US has duplicate boundaries (places represented by areas, and
> nodes), arguments about the definition of spaces, disagreements in the
> data between municipal and census data, etc. And this data changes,
> and we have not (even after years of working on the problem) found a
> good way to conflate and update. Finally, on top of that, the
> information Flickr has collected is telling us that our idea of
> neighborhoods needs to be rethought,and really does not lend itself
> well to the OSM model.
>
> So there too, is a potential win for OSM. We could rely on current,
> highly accurate public domain boundry data and use that for rendering,
> geolocation and other places, while keeping it out of the OSM dataset.
>
> The result of this would be:
>
> 1. More up to date maps
> 2. More accurate maps
> 3. Better geolocation (forward and reverse)
> 4. Reduction in errors caused by flawed data in OSM
> 5. Less editing wars due to differences of opinion between mappers and
> the authoritative data sources
> 6. Allowing OSM to focus on its core strength
>
> This seems like a win for everyone.
>
> - Serge
>



-- 
Jeff Meyer
Global World History Atlas
www.gwhat.org
jeff at gwhat.org
206-676-2347
www.openstreetmap.org/user/jeffmeyer
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20130107/94fa457f/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Talk-us mailing list