[Imports-us] DWG Action on Blacksburg, VA Building and Address Import

[Serge Wroclawski]

Clifford,

Thank you for taking action on this mater.

The license issue is certainly a prerequisite to addressing this
problematic import. Ican't speak for the DWG or LWG here but I think
that the email you got, if it's properly documented, is "Good enough".
It bothers me that they think this is de-facto public domain, because
legally it isn't, but from a practical standpoint, an email
documenting their position is probably sufficient. Again, this is
subject to deeper analysis by the proper working groups.

It turns out the original importer did leave some documentation here
(which we only found out about yesterday)

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Blacksburg,_Virginia#Blacksburg_GIS_Import_Status

As for involvement of the original importer- I have no opinion on
whether or not to involve them, though we did get a message from them
yesterday, so there's some good news, and I'll point them to this
thread.

Looking at the data u, there are really three issues, and I'll order
them by what I think is priority:

1. Address duplication
2. Undocumented tagging
3. Points as addresses on non-entrances

The most severe issue is #1. If it's an issue of apartments or suites,
that seems understandable but like something to address.

#2 - The tagging, the exranious tags don't seem to add anything,
they're just the address formatted differently. I'm not saying we
should delete them en mass, but if we modify objects, I think that it
makes sense to remove them.

#3 I don't get the sense when I look at this that the points are all
on the addresses. Maybe I'm mistaken and they are. If they are, we
should tag them as entrances. If they're not, then it seems like the
best thing to do would be to merge them with the buildings, like we've
done in most other places.

- Serge