<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<font color="#ffffff">Hi Mike,
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 10/2/2022 1:51 PM, Mike Thompson wrote:
<br>
</font>
<blockquote type="cite"><font color="#ffffff">* HIFLD seems to
contain 570 separate datasets, it is unreasonable to expect the
community to review all of them to approve this import. The
people proposing the import need to narrow down the scope to
just a few datasets, or perhaps just one to start.
<br>
</font></blockquote>
<font color="#ffffff">
<br>
The imports listed on the wiki page are the datasets that I have
deemed useful for importing/obtaining metadata for OSM. the full
list link on the HIFLD website is somewhat misleading to the total
amount of datasets that are eligible for OSM. there are a lot of
datasets that have duplicate entries as both "feature layer" and
"file geodatabase" but contain the same data. If you filter the
data to just contain the feature layers, it narrows it down to
about 376 datasets. But I've omitted a lot of datasets from my
list of candidates for a couple reasons:
<br>
<br>
1: it already has been imported into OSM
<br>
<br>
the HIFLD includes data from the NHD, GNIS, and TIGER datasets.
these have already been imported into OSM and as such I could
exclude these from consideration
<br>
<br>
2: the quality is too low
<br>
<br>
from the data I looked at in the mining datasets for example, the
quality was overwhelmingly poor, and I chose to omit these because
it would be closer to vandalism to add these due to the low
quality.
<br>
<br>
3: the contents aren't within the scope of OSM
<br>
<br>
There are quite a few datasets, such as "Historical Tsunami Event
Locations" or "Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Regions that
don't record anything that physically exists on the ground and as
such aren't verifiable or within the scope to include in OSM.
<br>
<br>
<br>
from a quick count, I already determined that about 92 datasets
were eligible for OSM (listed on the wiki). when I reassess
quality for the datasets, I may make the number even smaller.
<br>
<br>
<br>
</font>
<blockquote type="cite"><font color="#ffffff">* As Greg suggested,
we need to know how specifically the fields in these datasets
are going to be transferred into OSM tags. Ideally having the
scripts used to do so, and the output in OSM format to ensure
the process worked as expected.
<br>
</font></blockquote>
<font color="#ffffff">I've been writing specific instructions on an
individual dataset basis in order to clearly translate tags in the
database to tags in OSM. If I can figure out the scripting, I will
document it then as well.
<br>
</font>
<blockquote type="cite"><font color="#ffffff">* At least one of the
datasets (Major Sports Venues) doesn't even contain
geometry/coordinates that I can determine, so I am not sure how
it can be imported.
<br>
</font></blockquote>
<font color="#ffffff">"Major Sports Venues" isn't on the list of
datasets that I deemed eligible for import probably for this
reason.
<br>
</font>
<blockquote type="cite"><font color="#ffffff">* I would recommend
that where possible, the data be obtained from the original
source (other Federal agency, state, etc.). This ensures that
the most recent data is used (still might not be recent enough),
and that nothing has been lost in the process of
merging/translating the data into HIFLD. I don't think HIFLD
did any "value add" other than aggregating various sources and
perhaps some standardization (e.g. individual features were not
verified).
<br>
</font></blockquote>
<font color="#ffffff">I can document and do this where possible.
<br>
</font>
<blockquote type="cite"><font color="#ffffff">* Some of the data may
not belong in OSM, e.g. "American Red Cross Chapter Regions"
<br>
</font></blockquote>
<font color="#ffffff">
<br>
I'm aware of this, and I haven't listed any of these region
datasets in my list of eligible data.
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
-James Crawford (SherbetS)
</font><br>
</body>
</html>