[Imports-us] NJ Landuse import (NJ2002LULC)

Darrell Fuhriman darrell at garnix.org
Wed Aug 21 04:19:33 UTC 2013


I won't argue with your first two points, however...


> 3. The import is wrong in a number of places
> 
> I don't know if it's because the import is old, but the data is simply
> wrong in many areas.


Based on what? It's great to declare "it's simply wrong" but there should be a little bit more justification than that. Many areas? How many? How much of the total area do these "simply wrong" areas entail? Why are they "simply wrong"? And further, why is it being "wrong in a number of places" justification for removing everything in its entirety?


> 4. I disagree with many areas' subjective data
> 
> One of my bigger frustrations with this import is that I simply
> disagree with some of the classifications, especially "scrub", and
> this is very typical of landuse classifications- they're highly
> subjective.

Totally disagree. "Subjective" is not the same as "something I disagree with".

Scrub/Shrub is fairly well defined classification (albeit, one of the less clear ones), with a body of scholarly literature behind it. They have been defined, and photo-identified by trained experts, and often rely on data that may not be available in visible photos (soil types, historical use records, infrared bands), or obvious without training (vegetation types).

While I won't argue that these are 100% "objective" (simply because I doubt there is any such thing), "subjective" is not the same as wrong, and there are often good reasons to trust one person's "subjective" opinion over another's.


> I think that unlike the TIGER work that's being proposed, this import
> is not really fixable. In order to fix it, the relations and their
> component ways would basically need to be reconstructed. The work
> would be huge and so complex I don't think that it would be doable
> without some serious software engineering.

I'm skeptical of this statement, though I will admit to not having looked closely at the data.

> So my proposal is to remove this import entirely.

My preference is to fix, rather than to remove.

Darrell





More information about the Imports-us mailing list