<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>Hm, I like your idea. That's actually good, at least who sees the
changeset and wants to check what i was working from, can go to
the import page and see the details. But i want to hear from
others too. Many people use different sources. Probably it's a
good solution if i used the source tagging I used, since then it
makes DWG aware that it's not a<tt>n</tt> undiscussed matter.<br>
</p>
<p>I'm preparing the dataset and then send here to the import list
to so you can take a quick glimpse on it and review it but i'll
send to my West Virginian friend too, so he sees the stuff.<br>
<br>
I'm trying to follow the guidelines of the importing.<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 8/12/2021 6:55 PM, Clifford Snow
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CADAoPLqE=301PqZUbPNhM0y8OVV_BxMOzGvJpswm+57pTzQ4xw@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">I like to point the changeset source to the wiki
import page. </div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Thu, Aug 12, 2021 at 8:59
AM Attila Kun <<a href="mailto:attila@attilakundev.com">attila@attilakundev.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<p>Also i got the question in mind, what should be the
source tagging?</p>
<p>I set up a long tagging for the exact source for the
changesets(<font face="monospace">source="<a
rel="nofollow"
href="https://wvgis.wvu.edu/data/dataset.php?ID=58"
target="_blank">https://wvgis.wvu.edu/data/dataset.php?ID=58</a>
discussed with #local-west-virginia on OSM US Slack and
imports mailing list" </font>), but shouldn't I just
write<font face="monospace"> source=WV GIS Tech Center;
WVDoF</font> instead of it?</p>
<p>Because that would make everything easier, and it's gonna
be documented on wiki nevertheless...<br>
</p>
<div>On 8/12/2021 5:26 PM, Attila Kun wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<p>Yes, you didn't misread it, it's about a Boundary
import aka boundary=protected_area.<br>
</p>
<p>As it reads in the dataset description, "Last Revised
in 2020 for USGS's Protected Areas Database, a subset of
the National Gap Analysis project." So it means I'm
gonna work with pretty decent data which is a good
thing, and i checked the quality of the dataset, I only
need to do some minor multipolygon editing, i already
set up the tagging, so yeah, i'm not gonna import it
like an idiot but like i have proper knowledge how to,
after some research of how the taggings work. The
taggings of the dataset is based on the PAD US scheme,
for which WV GIS TC provided a PDF file to explain what
tag does what.</p>
<p>I haven't started it yet, but i guess you all say that
i should be good to go if I do it carefully, but that's
why I wanted to hear from you.</p>
<p>I created a <a
href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/ottwiz_import"
target="_blank">separate account </a>just for the
import itself so it's distinguished from my main one.<br>
</p>
<div>On 8/12/2021 4:52 PM, Adam Franco wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px
0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"> > On 12 Aug
2021, at 08:38, Mateusz Konieczny via Imports <<a
href="mailto:imports@openstreetmap.org"
target="_blank">imports@openstreetmap.org</a>>
wrote:<br>
I disagree. For simple polygons (few nodes),
overlapping ways might be the easiest to maintain
representation, but as an editor I would always
prefer a multipolygon to tens or hundreds of
reused/overlapping nodes in overlapping ways.<br>
</blockquote>
<div>As a heavy land-cover mapper I agree that
multipolygons are vastly easier to improve over
time than to try to disconnect overlapping ways.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>That said, unless I'm misreading the wiki the i<a
href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/West_Virginia_State_Forests_Import"
target="_blank">mport being discussed</a> is
about State Forest (protected area) boundaries not
land-cover/land-use. I'd rather not have folks
doing land-cover/land-use imports from poor data,
but I'm of the opinion that protected area
boundaries are often a very good candidate for
[careful] importing if the data are of good
quality.<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset></fieldset>
<pre>_______________________________________________
Imports mailing list
<a href="mailto:Imports@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank">Imports@openstreetmap.org</a>
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<fieldset></fieldset>
<pre>_______________________________________________
Imports mailing list
<a href="mailto:Imports@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank">Imports@openstreetmap.org</a>
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
Imports mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Imports@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank">Imports@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br clear="all">
<div><br>
</div>
-- <br>
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>@osm_washington<br>
</div>
<div><a href="https://www.snowandsnow.us"
target="_blank">www.snowandsnow.us</a></div>
<div>OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>