[Talk-us] Merging NYC buildings
brad.neuhauser at gmail.com
Fri Sep 19 19:12:08 UTC 2014
The thing is, once it's in OSM, it's not NYC's data anymore--it's
everyone's data. So it's no longer "authoritative." Sometimes the crowd
will improve it or add to it, sometimes the crowd will screw it up,
sometimes the crowd will do it differently than you think is best. The
theory (borne out in practice thus far) is that over time the data quality
line keeps trending upwards.
On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 1:28 PM, Reilly, Colin <creilly at doitt.nyc.gov>
> " All that a particular data source can be authoritative for is what that
> data source says something is. What is authoritative for OSM is the ground
> Not sure I understand the first sentence. As for the second, your eyes can
> deceive you. Nonetheless, I would argue that authoritative data should
> matter and could be tagged as source= authoritative. Intent not to prevent
> other from updating but more as a cautionary flag. To me accuracy and
> currency should be paramount.
> " This seems incorrect. If I build a structure on two tax parcels, it can
> exist as a single building. It may not be legal, or may require planning
> tricks that make it two buildings in the eyes of the city, but if I survey
> it and it's one building, I will map it so."
> Not in NYC. Although there are some edge and legacy cases, you cannot
> legally build a building that straddles more than one parcel. You would
> first need to merge the tax parcels before constructing the building.
> " Yah, if that were true it would be a very strange and site-specific
> rule. I know of several buildings here that span multiple tax lots."
> NYC specific. I was not speaking in general terms but to NYC
> building/finance codes. Without that requirement, code enforcement and tax
> assessment would be difficult.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Talk-us