[Imports-us] NJ Landuse import (NJ2002LULC)
remillard.jason at gmail.com
Wed Aug 21 17:52:17 UTC 2013
We should probably separate the discussion on general issues related
to land use import in OSM (intense relations, accuracy, does it make
sense for it to be in OSM, etc, etc) and what to do with the current
NJ data. We have some small land use imports in cape cod, that share
many of the technical issues you mentioned. Also, the land use import
that was on the lists a couple of months ago in Japan, was a much the
I am not sure we know how to do a good land use import right now.
If somebody is willing to give another go at the import, I think it
would be an easy decision to remove the data and we could work hard on
If nobody wants to take another swing at it, then its harder. Clearly,
there are OSM'ers that want the data in the map, I think killing it
wholesale because it is land use data is probably not a good idea. If
the technical issues go beyond the normal land use import issues, then
I think it would be ok to remove it.
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 10:31 AM, Serge Wroclawski <emacsen at gmail.com> wrote:
> Your question has several unstated presumptions:
> 1. That newer landuse data is more correct than the current data
> 2. That the problems inherint in this data won't be present in the new data
> 3. That this data has a steward who will maintain it, and will provide
> an import that is of higher quality than what was done before, and
> account for all the existing OSM data in the process.
> And most importantly
> 4. That this is data we want in OSM
> I'm not convinced that landuse=residential and landuse=industrial,
> etc. are valuable data for OSM to have. We could certainly provide
> this data for rendering purposes, but I don't see the great value in
> it being in OSM.
> But even if I were convinced, I want to see 1,2 and 3 addressed.
> I'll also add 5
> 5. That importing so much data this way is a good idea.
> So here's my suggestion to those who disagree with my proposal:
> Either refine it (that is amend my proposal, saying "Keep this but not
> that") or else make another proposal- for work that you are willing to
> do yourself. That way we have something concrete to talk about.
> - Serge
More information about the Imports-us