[Imports] Hungarian CLC import

[Balázs Szalkai]

More than about one third of Hungary has already been imported from the CLC
dataset by others. The following tag is used for attribution:

source=© EEA, Koppenhága (2009); Készítette a FÖMI a KvVM megbízásából
(2009)

I'm not a lawyer but I think this tagging is correct. see
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2011-April/057501.html

What I do about existing data is: I check all the existing landuse polygons
by hand before import. I remove most of the landuse=residential polygons,
as they are usually also present in the CLC dataset and the CLC versions
are more accurate (checked with Bing). There are also some existing
sporadic forests and meadows, but usually they are also represented in CLC
so then I delete them and copy the extra information (e.g. name of forest)
into the newly imported forest polygon. There were 2-3 cases when CLC and
existing data disagreed about a forest, CLC marked it as farm. Then I left
both the existing and new data in place and tagged the forests with
"fixme=please check this, i don't see any forest here on Bing and CLC marks
this as farm, too" or something.

I don't think CLC is low resolution. Vineyards, meadows, forests, etc. are
usually accurate. See for example
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=46.3314&lon=19.0919&zoom=13&layers=M You
can see here that CLC is well-detailed. Nevertheless, there are some voids
that need to be filled manually in the future, as you can also see on the
linked map fragment.

On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 3:26 AM, Paul Norman <penorman at mac.com> wrote:

> What tagging are you proposing to use?****
>
> ** **
>
> What do you intend to do about existing data?****
>
> ** **
>
> I’ve heard that CLC is a fairly low resolution dataset and not well suited
> to OSM which is higher resolution. Is this true in your area?****
>
> **
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/imports/attachments/20121029/bcf6e0bc/attachment.html>