[Imports] Fwd: Hungarian CLC import

László Csatlós plutoz01 at gmail.com
Sat Nov 3 20:10:01 GMT 2012


Hi,
I'm a CLC importer from Hungary, too.


> Is it possible to use a source key that makes it clear that it’s CLC?
 Nope.
We have to use the source "© EEA, Koppenhága (2009); Készítette a FÖMI a
KvVM megbízásából (2009)", because we received the whole data indirectly
not from Corine but from FÖMI.
FÖMI means ~ Ministry of Environment and Water (in Hungary), they merged
the seperated CLC layers (located
HERE<http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data/clc-2006-vector-data-version-2>)
and cut them with the Hungary polygon. We downloaded from their
homepage<http://www.kvvm.hu/index.php?pid=9&sid=50&cid=291>.
The only restriction is we HAVE TO use the source tag "© EEA, Koppenhága
(2009); Készítette a FÖMI a KvVM megbízásából (2009)".


> Are the values for CLC:code and CLC:id listed on the wiki?

CLC:id not listed, it is unique.
CLC:code list is located at this
link<http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Corine_Land_Cover>at the
Tagging section.


2012/11/3 Paul Norman <penorman at mac.com>

> Is it possible to use a source key that makes it clear that it’s CLC?****
>
> ** **
>
> Are the values for CLC:code and CLC:id listed on the wiki?****
>
> ** **
>
> If CLC:code indicates the landuse type, is there any value to it if it is
> duplicating the tagging?****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Balázs Szalkai [mailto:bszalkai0 at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, October 29, 2012 7:45 AM
> *To:* Martin Koppenhoefer; imports at openstreetmap.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Imports] Hungarian CLC import****
>
> ** **
>
> Hi,****
>
> Here are the properties of an example multipolygon:****
>
> ** **
>
> <tag k="CLC:code" v="311"/>****
>
> <tag k="CLC:id" v="HU-18010"/>****
>
> <tag k="CLC:year" v="2006"/>****
>
> <tag k="landuse" v="forest"/>****
>
> <tag k="source" v="© EEA, Koppenhága (2009); Készítette a FÖMI a KvVM
> megbízásából (2009)"/>****
>
> <tag k="wood" v="deciduous"/>****
>
> <tag k="type" v="multipolygon"/>****
>
> ** **
>
> "You will also see that people are adjusting their own work to what is
> already there (because that's the "standard")"****
>
> ** **
>
> Well, I'm not sure. My humble experience shows that there are very
> thorough mappers who e.g. always add a "source" tag to their additions
> (even if it is a survey) and try to be as precise as possible, and there
> are people who flood OpenStreetMap with rivers, places, etc. that are about
> 70m off from reality; or they make frequent spelling mistakes (I have
> corrected lots of them). Your standards really do not depend on what other
> people do and how. But this is just my theory.****
>
> ** **
>
> "you will be surprised how fast this situation might change"****
>
> ** **
>
> Let's hope the best. A more recent and more detailed Bing would really be
> awesome. In the past few months I recorded several tracks with my GPS at a
> poorly photographed area, but that was quite a tedious work compared to
> finding and tracing them on a satellite imagery.****
>
> ** **
>
> "Well, if there are no objections from the mappers in your area"****
>
> ** **
>
> no, there aren't.****
>
> ** **
>
> _______________________________________________
> Imports mailing list
> Imports at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/imports/attachments/20121103/6b195572/attachment.html>


More information about the Imports mailing list