[Imports-us] NJ Landuse import (NJ2002LULC)

Brian May bmay at mapwise.com
Wed Aug 21 14:29:00 UTC 2013

Looks like there is a 2007 version as well that was released in 2010.



What about extracting the landcover from the OSM version and comparing 
it with the 2007 version? Have there been more fixes in the OSM version 
vs. the 2007 version? Is the 2007 version significantly better than the 
OSM version? If the 2007 version is even marginally better that would 
sound like a good reason to delete the 2002 and import the 2007 without 
using complex relations, etc. If there are pockets of major changes in 
the OSM version that are better than 2007, those could be merged in to 
the 2007 version before the re-import. 


From: "Jason Remillard" <remillard.jason at gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2013 10:02 AM
To: "Serge Wroclawski" <emacsen at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Imports-us] NJ Landuse import (NJ2002LULC) 

Hi Serge,

Would it be possible to re-import the same data later with the
relations straighten out?


On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 10:19 PM, Serge Wroclawski  wrote:
> Hi all,
> I've been struggling for several months with the NJ2002LULC import .
> This import has a number of very deep problems (which I'll go into)
> but the bottom line is at this point, I'd like to propose to remove
> the import entirely.
> Since this is such a drastic action, I've CCed the author of the
> import, but here are my reasons:
> 1. The import has a number of technical errors
> There are many places where the import is broken, with ways/relations
> that are unclosed, all (or at least a vast majority) of the closed
> ways inside relations are duplicated, etc.
> 2. The import has a large number of "mega-relations"
> This import has many very large, very complex relations. These complex
> relations make the data virtually impossible to work with. I've had so
> many problems trying to fix data that I've ended up just needing to
> take the entire relation away, and I don't think I'm the only one.
> 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.
> 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.
> 5. The import is not really fixable manually or automatically
> 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.
> And to fix the import manually would actually involve more work than
> recreating the data by hand.
> So my proposal is to remove this import entirely.
> Thoughts?
> - Serge
> _______________________________________________
> Imports-us mailing list
> Imports-us at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports-us

Imports-us mailing list
Imports-us at openstreetmap.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/imports-us/attachments/20130821/88d8c35f/attachment.html>

More information about the Imports-us mailing list