[Talk-us] Neighborhoods / Zillow

[Clifford Snow]

On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 3:35 PM, stevea <steveaOSM at softworkers.com> wrote:

> +1:  this is true for me as well, so I agree.  Well, it is verifiable by
> what our local government says (through the consensus of public process,
> like City Council meetings) via polygons, AND by the more vaguely-defined
> but still useful nodes, of which there are several in my city.  This both
> democratizes and harmonizes neighborhoods without making defining all of
> them a free-for-all (in my city, anyway -- in yours, well, there are both
> good and bad examples in OSM).
>
> For the former, I don't need a painted line on the ground, just what the
> City GIS department publishes on the open Internet, after these
> lines/polygons/neighborhood boundaries were reached by public process.  For
> the latter, these are fluid enough that they can come and go, move and
> change name.  Once again:  OSM accommodates by storing, displaying
> (uniquely!) and indexing both types of data.
>
> While this discussion is good, I don't think a "one polygon (or one node)
> fits all" solution will work across the very wide diversity of
> "neighborhoods" in the USA.  Accordingly, let us allow some minor small
> smears of syntax (multiple solutions) to capture multiple semantics.  It
> doesn't hurt anything, and nobody pretends there is a standard way to
> "properly map" every single thing in OSM we wish to map, just high-quality
> representations of things (which are all of captured in the database,
> rendered, and indexable).  Both polygons and nodes for neighborhoods do all
> three of those, and sometimes a polygon is better than a node (or vice
> versa), so I continue to believe using both is OK.
>

+1


-- 
Clifford

OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20130615/550f22dc/attachment.html>