[Imports] US Golf Courses from GNIS

Toby Murray toby.murray at gmail.com
Thu Dec 22 07:03:50 UTC 2011

More problems I found by just downloading all leisure=golf_course
objects and randomly browsing around some of Kansas/Nebraska with Bing

Can't idenfity on aerial. I could just be missing it. Or GNIS position
might be off by a lot. Some are in the middle of a town without so
much as a full block of grass anywhere near them. Or it may have been
closed but is still in GNIS. It is unlikely that it is a new golf
course. Bing imagery seems to be pretty recent (2010) in most areas I
looked at.

Two golf courses in close proximity that are probably the same course,
maybe known by two different names:

Were these not in GNIS or were they excluded because of an existing
way? Could have maybe used GNIS data to add a name to the existing


On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 11:27 PM, Toby Murray <toby.murray at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 4:05 PM, Golf Geek <golfgeek2011 at hotmail.com> wrote:
>> After reviewing the Import/Guidelines wiki, I realize I should have posted
>> here first, but here's a quick "after action report" on a recent import.
>> Better late than never. :)
> Why didn't you read this before the import? This should not be viewed
> as optional.
>> I noticed that although USGS GNIS data had been imported into OSM in the
>> past, the US golf course locations provided as GNIS Locales had not been
>> included.
>> So, I retrieved GNIS Locales with "Golf" in the name from
>> http://geonames.usgs.gov/ and saved them as OSM nodes, using these tags:
>> gnis:Class = Locale
>> gnis:County = [various]
>> gnis:ST_alpha = [various]
>> gnis:id = [various]
>> leisure = golf_course
>> name = [various]
>> source = USGS GNIS
>> From the list of ~6000 nodes, I removed any that overlapped with existing
>> OSM golf_course nodes or ways.
> You apparently failed to take into account how terrible GNIS spatial
> accuracy can actually be:
> Your node: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/1556636801
> Existing way: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/70764331
> Yes, that over a mile off. This is why the import guidelines say to
> discuss it with the community FIRST. There is much collected knowledge
> about imports in the community which can prevent such common mistakes.
>> The remaining 4421 nodes were then added as Changeset 10168800.
>> The data license is OK (USGS GNIS has been used before), and the new nodes
>> should not screw up existing data (although I am sure they are not perfect),
>> so hopefully this import will be a good starting point for further manual
>> edits.
> With nodes that are off by a mile, I am doubtful of this claim. So
> far, I have only looked at that one node so far. Others, please check
> more in your area. If mine is an outlier then I'll just fix it. If
> there are many more that are as bad as this one, I would propose
> reverting this import, especially since import guidelines were not
> followed.
> Toby

More information about the Imports mailing list