Parcel (cadastral) boundaries are great! Yup, *private* property

[jidanni (Dan Jacobson)]

Okay, I just checked with this run of the mail app I found,

and Steve gets an A+. The boundaries look pretty accurate!

[Matija_Nalis]

@jidanni

and Steve gets an A+. The boundaries look pretty accurate!

feel free to click that button on their post then, to indicate you appreciate their effort

[stevea]

@jidanni

Of course I am familiar with you. I’m that lasagna you had for dinner last night.

What the heck?

@jidanni

Maybe it was from official Tiger sources…

While “official,” yes, TIGER’s 2007-8 import is widely acknowledged to have been noisy, rather low-quality data (by today’s standards). There are wiki and resources to correct these data, something I and my fellow OSM volunteers have been doing for 15 years, and which by my estimate, will likely take into the mid-2040s before OSM fully cleans it up. We’re getting there. Why not pitch in and be part of the solution, @jidanni?!

@jidanni

Anyway I wasn’t actually at the scene of the crime. I’m rather kind of like in a different time zone or something.

What crime? And again, huh?

@jidanni

Anyway now I know why people just use points instead of attempting to draw any boundaries for important items no matter how big they are.

If this is sarcasm, it isn’t especially appreciated, nor do I believe it is accurate. OSM seems to agree with itself that adding a node as a “first draft representation” of something (like the general location of a park or nature_reserve), is an A-OK method to add data to our map. So, then, people can come along later to make it more accurate (perhaps as a polygon full of rich tags). Our map (data) are built one node, way and relation at a time, have been for over 18 years, and will continue to be into the future. Also, they will be improved, perhaps (as in this case) with reasonably “official,” reasonably accurate data that we all agree upon (whether offered an A+ or not). This is (partly) how our map is built, and “that’s a good thing.”

[jidanni (Dan Jacobson)]

Gee, they should just have imported USGS topographic maps instead of Tiger. Okay, I don’t know about the technical issues.

[stevea]

OSM (-US, though it wasn’t really called that at the time) did what it did w.r.t. TIGER in 2007-8.

USGS were likely not better data. So, please, do not assume what you do not know. USGS Topo data continue to seriously drift away from accurate relevance, though in some cases (like how tall is a peak, where are ridge tops, how might we follow a streambed…) these data can be useful.

The “they” you refer to is “us.” We decide what is best for our map. As a community, with consensus, going forward with better quality and better process.

Right? Right.