mihaii-telenav
commented
6 years ago Received response from Paul Garcia, GIS Analyst:
Hello Mihai, Thank you for letting us know about your intended use of our streets data. As you may have noticed, we provide a lot of our data freely through our OpenData portal on the web. The only caveat I would give for our streets data is that we do have some streets in that file that are classified as “Paper”. These are streets that are deep in the Santa Cruz mountains for subdivisions that will simply never be built due to the terrain and other landuse factors in that area. We do not display those streets in any of our applications. On a slightly different topic, I do not use OSM regularly. When I have used it, I have noticed that there are a number of regions that are symbolized as parks where no park exists. What I believe has occurred is that someone took our General Plan layer and may have mistakenly taken any polygon with a ‘PR’ General Plan designation and placed them in OSM as parks. I’m not sure if there is a process at OSM to fix these kinds of issues, but I can see this being problematic for people who come to visit our coastal tourist town and look for a park only to find an unimproved dirt lot. I’ve attached an image to demonstrate this issue using OSM, Google maps as well as our mapping application.
Regards,
Paul Garcia
Still not very clear if we have their approval to use this data. I'll keep in touch with him to clarify.
We are considering using this dataset for our future edits in San Jose/San Francisco/Oakland metro area:
License type - public domain
Sent email to data owner and LWG to check license compatibility.