<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>Sterling did the QA, well, other than checking the data that is
OSM-compatible we can't do more. I should say this came to an end,
and hopefully someone will either improve it from survey OR from
other source that is allowed to use in OSM. That's all for now.<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 8/14/2021 3:55 PM, Attila Kun wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:a2bcb90c-7e77-ec00-020e-bf7b89cc09ee@attilakundev.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<p>Yeah, understood. There are more experienced area boundary
editors than me so <i>probably </i>Skepticus will have a look
on it, because as seeing from their changesets, they're from
West Virginia and they're fixing boundaries.</p>
<p>Sterling is also gonna QA it, i hope with proper tools not just
like checking it out "yea it looks fine" but also checks to
other sources how it's like and stuff and then review how is it
like. But of course if i ask Skepticus on the case to have a
look at it, they might help in the matter.</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 8/14/2021 2:22 PM, Minh Nguyen
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:sf8chn$mf1$1@ciao.gmane.io">Vào
lúc 09:36 2021-08-13, Attila Kun đã viết: <br>
<blockquote type="cite">I just noticed this in Seneca State
Forest this close call of boundary overlapping to Rimel WMA,
but because i'm doing the raw import where i check any data
issues like self-intersections, incomplete boundaries etc,
maybe me on the main account or someone else should fix this
issue. <br>
<br>
I thoroughly checked the borders so where it was possible i
said "yeah, this is OK" or "this should be fixed at certain
points". <br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/13087452"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/13087452</a>
<br>
<br>
Also, for some reason Nominatim haven't cached the recently
imported boundaries yet, but i hope it will do once. <br>
<br>
About the two existing forest boundaries i mentioned, they
will be kept, since i have some uncertainty on the forest
boundaries of it when compared the both, and the USGS version
seemed to be more accurate, because that was only in the
forest, the WVGIS boundary was overlapping a property. <br>
<br>
To be honest, most of the imports didn't even say a word if
there's something wrong with them, so that's why i gave this
attention. <br>
</blockquote>
<br>
All the wildlife management areas in West Virginia were
apparently sourced from the USGS PAD-US database. [1] That
national-level database is aggregated from local sources,
analogous to how TIGER and NAD are compiled. Given the
discussion on [1], I don't think we can be sure that the
imported WMA data lines up with the actual data in PAD-US. Some
of the WMA boundaries have been manually corrected based on
imagery overlays, but seemingly not all. [2] So definitely don't
conflate the WVDOF data to the existing WMA boundaries until
we're sure about that. <br>
<br>
[1] <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/85694417"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/85694417</a>
<br>
[2] <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/91787231"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/91787231</a>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>