<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 17-Feb-17 09:04 PM, Andrew Davidson
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:c54ebce6-33ad-dbf0-06f4-767c54c4427b@gmail.com"
type="cite">The good folks at DoEE have been more helpful and have
given us permission to use future releases of CAPAD under the same
terms. Given that the next release of CAPAD is due out in a number
of weeks it raises the question should we wait and then do an
import?
<br>
</blockquote>
Wait. <br>
<br>
For those like me lost with the acronyms <br>
<br>
DoEE, Commonwealth Department of Environment and Energy <br>
<span class="st">CAPAD, Collaborative Australian Protected Areas
Database<br>
<br>
</span>
<blockquote
cite="mid:c54ebce6-33ad-dbf0-06f4-767c54c4427b@gmail.com"
type="cite">
<br>
Assuming that the community thinks this is a good idea the other
big question is what to do with the existing boundaries. Having a
look at the data it appears that the data we have permission to
use is:
<br>
<br>
1. NSW from NSW LPI (but these are only the areas managed by the
NSW NPWS)
<br>
<br>
2. Tas from CAPAD 2014
<br>
<br>
3. SA from DEWNR
<br>
<br>
All of the other data is from unknown sources or sources we don't
have permission to use (or at least I can't find it on the wiki).
<br>
<br>
So do we:
<br>
<br>
1. Scrub them off and start again,
<br>
2. Scrub off the other tags and leave them if they have a
landcover tag, or
<br>
3. Try and reuse them with the replace geometry tool?
<br>
<br>
Other ideas?
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
My thoughts ... initial .. subject to improvements?<br>
<br>
A)<br>
Data should not be removed from OSM base on a suspicion. <br>
If you believe something comes from a copyright source then take it
up with the contributor on an individual basis. If you don't want to
do this .. then don't remove the data either.<br>
<br>
B) <br>
The NSW LPI data I would leave alone for now. <br>
Work on those states that are not well defined or poorly represented
in OSM. <br>
I would compare the present data in OSM with the CAPAD data .. if it
is the same then add the tag checked=CAPAD yyyy ? (where yyyy =
numerical year)<br>
If it is different then use the replace geometry tool and then alter
the source tag.. <br>
If new .. then just add it as usual.<br>
<br>
C) <br>
Has the appropriate OSM permission for this import been obtained? It
has been for past CAPAD .. but may need to be verified for 2016?
Should be a simple thing? <br>
Possibly the permission needs to be open ended like the DoEE
permission to use it? <br>
<br>
----------------------------<br>
I note that the DoEE are using OSM mapping ... through mapbox.<br>
see map on
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://data.gov.au/dataset/collaborative-australian-protected-areas-database-capad-2010-external12">https://data.gov.au/dataset/collaborative-australian-protected-areas-database-capad-2010-external12</a><br>
<br>
--------------------<br>
Some OSM links<br>
2014 import of CAPAD<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Catalogue/Collaborative_Australian_Protected_Areas_Database_(CAPAD)">http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Catalogue/Collaborative_Australian_Protected_Areas_Database_(CAPAD)</a><br>
Permission to use CAPAD (starts sequentially from the top earliest
and to the bottom latest) <br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Attribution/Department_of_the_Environment_and_Energy_CAPAD">http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Attribution/Department_of_the_Environment_and_Energy_CAPAD</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>