[Imports] US Golf Courses from GNIS

Josh Doe josh at joshdoe.com
Thu Dec 22 19:45:52 UTC 2011


I just pulled in the changeset, and only three nodes have been changed:
Name corrected:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/1556624529/history

Position moved:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/1556638779/history

And deleted:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/1556629698/history

I'd suggest this be reverted tonight, keeping the two corrected nodes.
Also, when we re-import this (more slowly), I don't think we need any
of the gnis tags except for the ID, which should probably use
gnis:feature_id.

If I get a chance and no objections, I'll revert this tonight (~8
hours from now).
-Josh

On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 1:59 PM, Josh Doe <josh at joshdoe.com> wrote:
> I've noticed in my area golf course nodes added that already exist:
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/1556625188
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/1556629688
> and others
>
> I support reverting this changeset ASAP.
>
> Golf Geek,
> Let's instead take the work you've done and split it up into state
> sized chunks (e.g. via Osmosis). Then several contributors including
> yourself can manually merge the nodes a state at a time. Thank you for
> your interest in this, and for coming forward on the mailing list.
> Trust me that this is not the first time this kind of thing has
> happened, but you did the right thing coming here and letting us know.
>
> Regards,
> -Josh
>
> On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 2:03 AM, Toby Murray <toby.murray at gmail.com> wrote:
>> More problems I found by just downloading all leisure=golf_course
>> objects and randomly browsing around some of Kansas/Nebraska with Bing
>> imagery.
>>
>> 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.
>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/1556624422
>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/1556638495
>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/1556635779
>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/1556635714
>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/1556624015
>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/1556625367
>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/1556625957
>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/1556631507
>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/1556638863
>>
>>
>> Two golf courses in close proximity that are probably the same course,
>> maybe known by two different names:
>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/1556638410
>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/1556627728
>> and
>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/1556624801
>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/1556639241
>>
>>
>> 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
>> way:
>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/46342164
>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/43332671
>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/42280171
>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/98180901
>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/129025203
>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/126614718
>>
>> Toby
>>
>>
>>
>> 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Imports mailing list
>> Imports at openstreetmap.org
>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports



More information about the Imports mailing list