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 <[email protected]> Sent: 16 September 2020 08:51 To: Mateusz Konieczny <[email protected]> Cc: OSM Talk <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
