[Talk-us] Neighborhoods / Zillow

[Minh Nguyen]

On 2013-06-15 6:51 PM, Serge Wroclawski wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 6:35 PM, stevea <steveaOSM at softworkers.com> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> There is a growing number of OSM folks in the United States (myself
> included) who believe that government provided boundry data should be
> used for data products such as rendered maps and geocoders, but do not
> belong in OSM's core dataset (which is built around the idea of
> improvements based on local, verifiable observation).
>
> The result is that for data of the type you're talking about
> (government provided polygons), I think they'd be best provided as a
> third party service.
>
> And for the more subjective neighborhood boundaries, by its nature, it
> doesn't belong in OSM either.

But there's a third kind of neighborhood data: objective data that 
doesn't come from a government database.

I've driven all over Cincinnati's northeastern suburbs collecting 
subdivision names, the ones that adorn signs and gates at subdivision 
entrances. I used to hear school bus drivers use the same names when 
communicating their progress over the radio. These subdivisions are only 
meaning of "neighborhood" that makes sense in an area with endless sprawl.

Upon returning to my armchair, I trace individual landuse=residential 
polygons for each of these subdivisions. It's easy to discern the 
boundaries because most subdivisions aren't connected. Where they are, 
one can easily spot where sidewalks end, one cookie cutter architecture 
gives way to another, or the pavement quality changes -- some cities 
repave one whole subdivision at a time.

The result is a map that's actually informative at z14 (though still 
incomplete due to time constraints). Here's Mason and Deerfield Twp., OH:

http://mc.bbbike.org/mc/?lon=-84.3252&lat=39.32121&zoom=14&num=4&mt0=mapnik&mt1=google-map-mapmaker&mt2=nokia-map&mt3=waze-us

In nearby Loveland, Google and Nokia copied names like "Historic West 
Loveland" and "West Loveland North" out of the city's GIS. But those 
names are only used by city planners, a pitfall of relying solely on 
government sources:

http://mc.bbbike.org/mc/?lon=-84.28872&lat=39.27345&zoom=14&num=4&mt0=mapnik&mt1=google-map-mapmaker&mt2=nokia-map&mt3=waze-us

In Cincinnati proper, we've started to map admin_level=10 boundaries 
corresponding to the city's community councils. (Not all cities are 
large enough to have such an organized system.) They are a very relevant 
form of administration, so it makes sense to map their jurisdiction 
inasmuch as we already indicate the city limits.

Most of the boundaries are reinforced by an Interstate, steep hillside, 
river, rail yard, or other obvious feature, or at least by a major 
thoroughfare. Some correspond to villages annexed wholesale. Some even 
pass the "welcome sign test". But not all match real neighborhoods as 
residents understand them: "CUF" combines three neighborhoods, while 
"The Heights" is a controversial legal fiction (centered around the 
University of Cincinnati). We've decided to map place=neighborhood 
independently of CUF's administrative boundaries and include non-UC 
portions of The Heights in University Heights (one of CUF's three 
neighborhoods).

Different cities developed in different ways. OSM should encourage 
neighborhood data curated by locals aware of the city's history. Perhaps 
this kind of data is more suitable for display, while algorithmic 
solutions may be better for geocoding.

-- 
Minh Nguyen <mxn at 1ec5.org>
Jabber: mxn at 1ec5.org; Blog: http://notes.1ec5.org/