[Imports-us] Automated Edit Proposal, remove area=yes, and fix broken source tag in US Massachusetts
remillard.jason at gmail.com
Tue Aug 13 23:46:34 UTC 2013
Would anybody object to just killing the source tag, and putting it on
the changeset like would be done if it was a current import. It would
save 20 megs on the uncompressed MA snapshot. I 100% agree would be
good to do, but did not propose this on the first go to avoid any
There are two different building data sets. These buildings are from
the old data set that is called "MassGIS Data - Building - Footprints
(2-D, from 2002 LiDAR data)", it was just around Boston. The new data
set that covered the entire state is "MassGIS Data - Building
Structures (2-D, from 2011-2012 Ortho Imagery)", it was what was
imported this spring. Boston has the 2002 data set, and the rest of
the state is from 2011. I expect that they will have a third data set
in 7 or 8 years, It is probably a good idea to use the full name of
the data set. This is also why we should not be using URL's in our
source tags. They are fragile.
I don't really know when the address data is coming. Even if it was
released right now, I need to finish up the lake project (which this
is really part of in step 2), so it would sit for a couple of months.
To give people an idea of the scale of the over tagging issue in MA.
Removing just the import and attribution tags on all of the road nodes
will save about 300 megs from snapshot db size. This is not part of
this first step, but is something that eventually, we would like to
do. We have 3,329,462 of these.
On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 5:04 PM, Paul Norman <penorman at mac.com> wrote:
>> From: Serge Wroclawski [mailto:emacsen at gmail.com]
>> Sent: Sunday, August 11, 2013 5:05 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Imports-us] Automated Edit Proposal, remove area=yes, and
>> fix broken source tag in US Massachusetts
>> This is generally in line with the issues we had with TIGER tags, and
>> why we still haven't just gone ahead and removed all of the tags we
>> dislike, opting instead to wait until a change is made to them.
> One big difference between this an TIGER is that the TIGER tags could be
> automagically removed by the editors, but these can't because we don't
> want to remove all area=yes, only the area=yes from the import.
> I'm in favour, provided we're not getting address data in the near future.
>> and to replace the source tag value with the official name
>> of the data set used for the import: "MassGIS Data - Building
>> Footprints (2-D, from 2002 LiDAR data)".
> Is the official name what is most meaningful to mappers? Would something
> short like source=MassGIS Building Footprints be better?
> Keep in mind the usual cautions about the usefulness of source=*
>> The area tag is not needed anymore
> It was actually never needed, although strictly speaking not wrong.
More information about the Imports-us