<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Scott Atwood wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:9a21c4d20912071638x77ff7a8btcc3c0341fd933447@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 4:01 PM, Apollinaris Schoell <span
dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:aschoell@gmail.com">aschoell@gmail.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<div class="im">Scott Atwood wrote:<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>Finally, the source field references <a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://www.nationalatlas.gov/"
target="_blank">http://www.nationalatlas.gov/</a>,
but all the import mapped data fields are prefixed with "massgis:",
which seems quite odd, since this data should have nothing to do with
MassGIS.<br>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
this data isn't good enough for an import. resolution is very crude and
contains many errors</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>So the National Atlas data has been previously evaluated and
found to be of poor quality? </div>
<div> </div>
</div>
</blockquote>
I have done some checks in california where much better data is
available. Unfortnately the better data isn't yet available for import.
but it clearly shows how bad it is.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:9a21c4d20912071638x77ff7a8btcc3c0341fd933447@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<div class="im">
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<div>It looks like these boundaries were imported by user "John
Serafin" in April 2009. I tried contacting this user via the OSM
messaging system, but I got no response. I looked at the Import
Catalogue on the OSM wiki, and I couldn't find anything obvious that
corresponds to these imports.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Does anyone have any idea what the best way to get these
boundaries fixed up? Should they be deleted and reimported?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
If you have any better data, delete and import the better one<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I did a quick web search and found that the US National Park
Service maintains a website with a large collection of GIS data,
including park boundaries and campgrounds:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.nps.gov/gis/data_info/park_gisdata/hi.htm">http://www.nps.gov/gis/data_info/park_gisdata/hi.htm</a></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>How do people go about evaluating the quality of data that is
being considered for import? I'm not sure there is a better source for
US National Park boundaries than the NPS itself. It's not like it's
possible to survey the boundaries by observations on the ground. The
only way I was able to even determine that the previous import was
problematic is that places I knew to be just inside the park boundaries
appeared just outside the imported park boundaries.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
this data isn't much better either. It may be good for some parks. if
you can verify the data is good then import.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:9a21c4d20912071638x77ff7a8btcc3c0341fd933447@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>-Scott</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>-Scott</div>
</div>
<br>
-- <br>
Scott Atwood<br>
<br>
The hill isn't in the way, it is the way.<br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>