<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
On 4/6/2015 4:03 PM, Stefan Baebler wrote:<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAC8Zp0jDRU3kUNSGmeQ_E25A_KPWOUhWFXhgEBUtym4MHm2ZSg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">imports@
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Hi, fellow mappers!</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Our import project</div>
<div><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Slovenia_Landcover_Import_-_RABA-KGZ">https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Slovenia_Landcover_Import_-_RABA-KGZ</a><br>
</div>
<div>is nearly ready for a start of the actual import by the
community.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
I had a quick skim and had a few questions<br>
<br>
- Is the ministry okay that the source and source:date tags could be
deleted in the future?<br>
- Why indicate the source on the objects when you are indicating it
on the changeset?<br>
- I suggest adding source:date to the changeset<br>
<br>
- What are your plans for the raba:id tag you are proposing?
Experience has shown that these types of tags fall out of sync as
features are edited and don't tell you anything that couldn't be
derived from other information<br>
- raba:id makes it sound like it's an ID for the polygon, not an ID
for the type of landuse it is<br>
<br>
- Most government farm data sources do not have a category that
corresponds directly to landuse=meadow. This is born out by large
not-meadows having been imported as landuse=meadow and having to be
fixed in past imports. Are you <b>positive</b> that it is the
appropriate tag? What is the translation of the description for id
1300?<br>
<br>
- Is any simplification being applied?<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAC8Zp0jDRU3kUNSGmeQ_E25A_KPWOUhWFXhgEBUtym4MHm2ZSg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>Some blank (or landuse-tag-free at least) areas were used
for test import of limited scale a few days ago:</div>
<div>Karst: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/45.4787/13.7335">https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/45.4787/13.7335</a><br>
</div>
<div>Alps: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/46.4279/13.6791">https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/46.4279/13.6791</a><br>
</div>
<div>Farmland: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/46.1345/15.5874">https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/46.1345/15.5874</a></div>
</div>
</blockquote>
I see multiple disjoint polygons being represented as a single
polygon, e.g. <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4761048">https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4761048</a><br>
<br>
These should all be simply tagged closed ways with no relations to
avoid maintenance problems, unnecessary multipolygons, and other
problems. The explodecollections option of ogr2ogr may be useful
here. This will also need cleaning up in the area you've already
imported.<br>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>