[Imports] Hungarian CLC import

[Jaak Laineste]

On 05.11.2012, at 23:24, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

> 2012/11/5 László Csatlós <plutoz01 at gmail.com>:
>> About CLC:id: We keep them because of the easier update and indentification
>> later. It is not much work to delete them in a batch.
> 
> 
> what is your recommendation how to deal with this when you modify the
> object, e.g. split it in several parts, or when you combine several
> objects into one?

In theory, if you use combination of object history and id, then you can filter out objects which have not been modified in OSM, and handle others manually. But in practise you will hopefully have enough OSM edits, so you cannot trust the ID-s. It has been discussed many times, and I have not yet seen any example where external ID in OSM has proven to be something useful.

>> Another viewpoint: If there is nothing on the map, I have to draw everything
>> from the begining. It is so much, I rather search another map with lesser
>> work.
> if you additionally have to move every single CLC-node because none of
> it is at the right place (this was actually the case where I had to
> deal with this) it is more work than starting from scratch. In this
> case you either really love the area or let go and move on to an area
> which is more fun and less pointless work to edit. Usually when I meet
> an import mess in a remote area in OSM I fix a few problems but rather
> quick move on to somewhere more interesting and leave the mess to who
> imported it.

 This is exactly my experience also. I have tried to add a small lake to CLC covered area, and it was quite a pain to sneak it between existing multipolygons. Has everyone in your community tried out all these standard actions? Only positive thing was that I had to learn quite advanced polygon and relation editing tricks in JOSM for that (and I did presentation/training to our community), but many even advanced users in our community were giving up when they tried to do same. Also every single path and road which you will add later must later be linked to CLC and CLC must be adjusted to that. Do not be afraid of making mapping more work, people who do not like to map will not do it anyway. The problem is in making mapping more painful, and for community effort this is a showstopper. We have new after-CLC standard rule in editing now: if you see Corine data, and it does not fit you, just select the object and press delete, with this you only do good for yourself and other mappers. 

 My key suggestion is: please do to hurry. Import one county somewhere where you have real editors in various levels. In your situation: just stop by now. Collect real feedback. Test editing: adding new areas (small lakes etc), roads etc. It takes time: it is not sending email to list and asking it over a week. It may take 6+ months before you begin to see real impact - are users happy, what newbies think, how it is to add and edit other data etc. Then you know how to proceed on.

 Corine is not good to fill the map with something. The clean map area should start with roads and paths, it is much more useful, easier to understand and edit; and most of land coverage is related to it anyway. It is a little bit about layouts and editors also: in Potlach the (missing) roads will be harder to spot once you have the colorful Corine all over.

Jaak