[OSM-talk] "Limitations on mapping private information" - wiki page

[Nick Whitelegg]

I would understand 'semi-public garden' to be, for example, a garden where you pay an admission fee to enter, or one which is closed at night. Like Martin, I would expect these to be completely acceptable to map.

I think the intention is to deter people from mapping _fully private_ gardens which can be viewed from public roads, is this correct?

Nick


________________________________
From: Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com>
Sent: 16 September 2020 08:51
To: Mateusz Konieczny <matkoniecz at tutanota.com>
Cc: OSM Talk <talk at openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] "Limitations on mapping private information" - wiki page



sent from a phone

On 16. Sep 2020, at 09:41, Mateusz Konieczny via talk <talk at openstreetmap.org> wrote:

Do you think that this page is a good description of community consensus?


There are some points I would like to comment on:

-

  *   OpenStreetMap is not a property registry, thus do not map individual ownership of buildings or plots. There is no need to split residential landuse into individual plots. (Compare Parcel<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Parcel>.)


Yes, we do not map individual ownership of land and buildings generally, but unless the owner is a person, we could and privacy regulations would not prevent us from doing it. It also isn’t an argument for refraining from mapping property divisions, because these are interesting regardless of _who_ is the owner


“some structure of a semi-public garden appear to be the borderline of being acceptable.“

IMHO exaggerated, semi-public objects can be mapped in all detail and aren’t borderline cases

Well, at least according to my understanding of the term semi-public


Cheers Martin



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20200916/b0225387/attachment-0001.htm>