[Talk-us] CDP tagging

Zontine, Chris -(p) chrisz at telenav.com
Fri Jan 9 17:26:56 UTC 2015


+1 for not having statistical boundaries in OSM.

My objection is along the lines of what has been said about the boundaries changing. Once changed, who then takes responsibility to make it right?  If there is a lack of integrity at least in my experience I would look for more credible sources.

From: Brad Neuhauser [mailto:brad.neuhauser at gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, January 09, 2015 7:31 AM
To: Harald Kliems
Cc: Richard Welty; talk-us at openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] CDP tagging

+1 to not having statistical boundaries in OSM.

Even actual legal administrative boundaries change as there are annexations, detachments, mergers, improved accuracy, etc., so what's in OSM (or from the Census) should be used with that in mind too.

On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 8:48 AM, Harald Kliems <kliems at gmail.com<mailto:kliems at gmail.com>> wrote:

On Fri Jan 09 2015 at 9:41:21 AM Richard Welty <rwelty at averillpark.net<mailto:rwelty at averillpark.net>> wrote:

i think CDP boundaries are very clear cut, but they morph
frequently, have no legal standing, and don't necessarily
correspond to what local residents think.
... and there is no way to verify them on the ground. Yes, this is true for the various boundary/admin data too, but at least in that case there are good reasons for having them inside the OSM DB. So +1 for not having census boundaries in OSM.

 Harald.

_______________________________________________
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us at openstreetmap.org<mailto:Talk-us at openstreetmap.org>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20150109/152d9b15/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Talk-us mailing list