[OSM-talk] Abandoned Rails

Colin Smale colin.smale at xs4all.nl
Wed Sep 2 09:57:19 UTC 2015


 

Are you suggesting that parcel boundaries have no place in OSM, or that
only verifiable sources should be used? Suppose there was a suitably
licensed source of such boundaries, with authoritative provenance. Would
you be against this being in OSM on principle? Or is it only your
supposition that such information cannot be sufficiently verifiable
which gives rise to your concern? 

Anyway, fences, signs etc are not reliable indicators of parcel
boundaries (where there are land registries), unless the boundary is
legally described with reference to these physical artefacts. 

On 2015-09-02 11:36, Frederik Ramm wrote: 

> Hi,
> 
> On 09/02/2015 02:22 AM, Russ Nelson wrote: 
> 
>> I think Bryce's observation lays this issue to rest. No, you should
>> not delete railways you cannot see, because they might still exist in
>> the property lines,
> 
> Mapping property lines in OSM isn't something I think makes sense. There
> are reasons why we don't map land parcels.
> 
> The strength of OSM lies in verifiability, just like (one of) the
> strength(s) of Open Source software is that anyone can look a the code
> and check it.
> 
> Invisible property lines have to place in OSM because they cannot be
> easily verified and therefore they will never come close to the
> reliability that OSM has in other areas.
> 
> Unless marked by fences, signs, or other verifiable means, property
> lines should not be in OSM.
> 
> Bye
> Frederik
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20150902/4483fca7/attachment.html>


More information about the talk mailing list