[Talk-us] Unintentional improvements in OSM data influencing / improving other databases

[Bradley White]

>
> I echo this sentiment exactly as having taken place in California and in
> my experiences with OSM.  This is most certainly a longer-term endeavor
> (over several, even many years), but improvements in alignments between
> data components which have been entered into OSM from my County GIS,
> GreenInfo.org's publishing its "CPAD" (California Protected Area Database,
> published semi-annually, see our wiki) and other sources HAVE INDEED
> resulted in data improvements:  OSM influences CPAD, resulting in data
> improvements, CPAD influenced County GIS data, resulting in data
> improvements, later versions of these (County GIS and CPAD) data influenced
> OSM all over again, resulting in data improvements...and upward, upward and
> upward the spiral of more accurate, better-aligning data goes:  both
> private and public.  OSM gets the results, so do others.  Win-win.  Taking
> OSM out of the equation by asserting "these data don't belong in OSM" stops
> this improvement pipeline (wholly unintentional on my part, but certainly
> noticed) in its tracks.  (Yes, some data belong in OSM, some don't).


I'm in strong agreement here. OSM provides a unique platform to synthesize
multiple data sources in combination with field observation to produce
something potentially better than any of these single sources are on their
own. Trying to produce an accurate and detailed map of the entire US
strictly off of field observation and satellite imagery is simply
infesible, especially in remote, unpopulated areas. Many government and
agency data sources are in conflict with each other over the same
information; OSM can serve to provide "resolved" versions that are
confirmed with ground observation where required.

I agree that we shouldn't be importing parcel data wholesale, as-is. But,
if real-life accuracy is important, the fact that much of the information
we are trying to add in OSM (protected areas, land use, access
restrictions) is differentiated along parcel boundaries is simply
unavoidable to me. If this information is in the public domain and
generally corroborates what is on the ground, so long as the data is worked
through manually to confirm accuracy, I don't see the problem with using
parcel information as a piece of the "puzzle" in producing an accurate and
informative map.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20200902/d8dd914a/attachment.htm>