Talk:Key:ownership

|group=Restrictions

Is this copy&paste mistake? I can't think about better category right now. Xxzme (talk) 06:26, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

State vs national

What is the destinction between state and national? E.g. PostNord is a company owned by two states Denmark and Sweden, see https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/414511638. How would this be tagged?--PangoSE (talk) 18:08, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

This tag was created by an import in the United States, where a "State" is an admin_level=4 local government entity, the same as a province in many European countries, while "national" would refer to the Federal government of the United States, admin_level=2. I don't think this tagging system will work well for other countries, so I would not recommend using it in Denmark. Also, this tag appears to describe land ownership of particular parcels, not the ownership of an entity like a corporation or business. --Jeisenbe (talk) 04:30, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Proposal: public ownership

The four keys that describe public ownership are problematic and inappropriately US-centric:

• national (nation state)
• state (as in USA) or province (e.g. län in Sweden)
• county
• municipal

There are all sorts of semantic differences across the world that might make it difficult to neatly categorize public ownership into one of these categories due to different countries having coarser or finer levels of administrative divisions.

A better solution would to create a new value for this tag, ownership=public and deprecate the four values above. This could then be combined with an additional tag that indicates the level of government responsible for public administration, using the numeric values used in admin_level=*. I propose a new tag public=* for this purpose, which would indicate that an object is publicly managed by a specific level of government. For example, public=4 could be used on a State Park or perhaps even something like a State Highway in the United States. This also provides specific semantic meaning to objects, because it relates an object to an enclosing relation which is at the same admin_level=*.

I invite comments as to whether this is a worthwhile idea worth pursuing/proposing further.

I have seen park_type=* spew, wobble, fall and rise again over at least a decade. Seeing in about 2009 a possibility of "parks rendering in different colored boundaries (once a renderer caught up)," I discussed the idea / talking point of "park_level." I got around to wiki-documenting this only months ago in response to wiki documenting what happened with park_type=* and how we might improve it as it deprecates. The gist is that park_level "tracks" the value of admin_level for use in such a quagmire as this. It is simply an early idea, really, a talking point. It could be extended, as our syntax is plastic. Only a consensus agreement is required. It's also a tip of an iceberg, there is a huge amount that might be discussed in these realms. Stevea (talk) 23:34, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

I think we're on the same page about what we're trying to achieve here, though I'm not sure the best scheme to achieve it. In all honesty my first thought was that we could simply slap admin_level=* on parks with ownership=public and not have to introduce any new tags. It seems like that would be consistent with the description of admin_level as "describes the administrative level of an object within a government hierarchy". While it's currently used with boundary, is there any reason not to use it with other objects associated with that level of government? ZeLonewolf (talk) 00:39, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

100% agree "I'm not sure the best scheme to achieve it." Talking (typing here) is a great step along the way. I wouldn't do what you suggest with admin_level=* on sub-area polygons as now you start punching holes in a state, not what we want. A new tag that exactly describes the semantic we wish to achieve is a method (maybe not "the" method), we simply discuss now. But park_level seems too small a concept to capture this for the concept of ownership, which is the topic here. So maybe "something_level" would work, maybe there are suggestions as to what "something" is as it will describe that we are saying something about "public ownership level that tracks an appropriate admin_level value" and maybe nod our heads (about that). Let's go slow here. There are whole lot of other things this might be about, too. For our sanity, let's keep it tight and small, drawing a tiny box around the semantics. Stevea (talk) 23:57, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

I must add that the concept of "public ownership" in the USA does not parse the same around the world. Yes, I must say this sooner rather than later. It is a stickiness about ownership, and the "confusion" between "corporate" and "shared state ownership" (Sweden and Denmark) has already happened (above withi PangoSE). As you diverge from "ownership" into "public ownership," especially in a global project like OSM, it takes a global perspective what is meant by that: something which changes around the world. These are difficult topics to address in OSM, though I rise to the occasion. Stevea (talk) 00:11, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

I might toss out there "public_level" to assert "public and should/must track the value of admin_level" (for that part of the world, it gets messy fast). Good to have more eyes/minds on this. BTW, please "signature" at the end of posts here with four tildes. I can follow what's up with View History, but not everyone reading this transcript will do that. Stevea (talk) 00:20, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't really have a strong sense of preference as to which "XYZ_level" scheme might work best here. Unfortunately I think this is one of a number of issues that need to get sorted in order to get "public lands" right. As I re-read the page it's apparent that the concept of ownership grew as an offshoot of the parks topic and are likely insufficient as a general purpose concept of ownership. And ownership in the general sense is clearly "too big" to fly as a general OSM concept and starts to creep into a cadastre concept when expanded to its logical conclusion. I'm now thinking that ownership=* doesn't even belong in the public land discussion as currently presented. Yet it seems like there is still a need to express what ownership=* is try to get at, but with an added way to express admin_level=* numeric tagging for public lands. Perhaps this is best narrowed with a separate namespace, something like park:ownership=* optionally combined with park:public_level=* when park:ownership=public is set? ZeLonewolf (talk) 00:39, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

OK, that's a sharper focus, for sure. Please, flesh it out. I (we) am (are) listening. I've spoken a lot about these topics for many years, I listen. Stevea (talk) 00:41, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't want to sound too much like Woody Guthrie singing "This land is my land, this land is your land..." here (ZeLonewolf and I are on either side of North America, specifically in the USA, which shares these concepts of "public ownership" to a great degree). The public ownership concept in the USA is "bottom up" (owned by the People). Other parts of the world do something like this, something else entirely, or it might be said to be top-down (e.g. "Crown Lands") and is simply "different." I don't mean to rain on any parades, but you see how wrapping your head around this and how it touches (or doesn't) parks and/or how it touches (or doesn't) "other lands that aren't private..." whatever that means where you are. "Public ownership" means different things to differeint people around the world. It is a multi-faceted concept. How this is applied in OSM remains difficult. Talking about it helps, we do get closer. Zooming in and out at how large the scope of what we're nudging towards helps, too. Stevea (talk) 01:02, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

I've put together an initial description of park:ownership=* and park:public_level=*, and marked their status as "draft". Obviously this is heavily colored by the types of parks that I have personally visited and mapped and certainly US-centric. I welcome your input as to how this idea can be further developed to a wider audience as the talk pages on the wiki are generally a poor venue for socializing changes because so few people see them. ZeLonewolf (talk) 02:35, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Very nice. Again, these are restricted to parks (not public lands in general, which are a much more huge universe of domain) and these remain quite USA-flavored. In short, a good start, though "limited" to park and USA (for now). I wish to be encouraging, but unraveling this for a worldwide audience continues to present vast difficulties. So, we leverage on our existing admin_level values and say "well, on parks, for now..." to at least draw a small box around things. (And that's great!) Yet, imagine answering questions like PangoSE's above. Or whether Canadian Crown Lands are public as YOU mean the word...it is almost endless the conversations that can be had here. Yet, we begin to "shoehorn" the problem into a leverage of a solution (admin_level values) and say "parks for now." Good. You might post to talk-us or even wider (tagging?) and mention this transcript here, as well as the links you had me click above. They are good, initial "seeds" for further discussion. (And it simply opens up into something much, much larger, every time. That's OK, it IS larger). We must bite off no more than we can chew, lest we choke. Keeping it initially small helps. Stevea (talk) 02:43, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

ownership VS owner:type

Why not replacing Key:ownership by Key:owner:type, like exists Key:operator:type? Wouldn't that be more coherent? --Cyrille37 (talk) 07:56, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

No, exactly the opposite. One should replace operator:type=* with something else. *:type=* is unclear and redundant; operator:type=* is only used to avoid conflict with operator=*. ---- Kovposch (talk) 08:11, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Determining if a government institution acquired and designated lands and right-of-way (ROWs)

Do I tag as ownership=public if the lands where the structures stand and right-of-way were acquired and designated by a government institution (examples are if a company that acquired lands where the power line structures are located and portions (ROWs) were acquired by an institution/corporation/company owned by the government of a country)? Ervin11899 (talk) 17:14, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Only for entities of the private law. Companies typically created under private law, even owned by government. Something B (talk) 08:13, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

public

@Ervin11899: Why did you uncommented remove public from list? It is used 13,847 times. --Chris2map (talk) 21:42, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

inholding

Can anyone explain what inholding means? I'm not able to translate it and get the meaning. --Chris2map (talk) 21:44, 16 October 2024 (UTC)