[Imports] Hungarian CLC import

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2012/10/29 Balázs Szalkai <bszalkai0 at gmail.com>:
> "I think the question about tagging was refering to how you translate
> the Corine-tags to OSM-tags, and which tags from Corine you translate
> and which you drop."
>
> Let me put it this way. Some guy in the past has already converted the CLC
> dataset to .osm. I don't have the smallest clue who did it and how. Now I
> and the other importers are uploading this file in small pieces.


could you please share the keys that are used here on the list?


> http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=46.848&lon=18.51&zoom=10&layers=M. If we
> did not use CLC, there would be almost NO landuse data at all. I do also
> have concerns with the dataset. But currently it is the best we can do.


Actually I doubt that importing this is the best you can do. It will
give you good coverage with rough landuse data in the shortest time,
that is for sure, but in the long run it might slow down progress of
your map and keep quality on this low level. It is more motivating and
fun to start mapping in an empty area than it is in an area filled up
with rough crap (or more nicely said: with data for low and medium
resolutions). If people get the impression: this is all done (or
worse: this is all crap), they won't engage. You will also see that
people are adjusting their own work to what is already there (because
that's the "standard"), so if you start importing rough stuff, people
will also use approximate tracing, while if you started to trace in
good quality other people might join and in the end you will get a
much better result.


> "If you traced these features by hand from aerial
> imagery, would you do it in the way CLC did?"
>
> I would do better,


see ;-)


> but then please look at this area:
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=47.8738&lon=19.4649&zoom=13&layers=M
> There is no high resolution Bing imagery here. Now our only realistic choice
> to add landuse data about this place to OSM is to use CLC.


you will be surprised how fast this situation might change, also here
in central Italy there was no good aerial imagery available some time
ago (just Yahoo which had horrible offsets, was oldish and not the
best resolution), then in short time (2 years) we got permission to
use imagery for tracing from a national geoportal (PCN) and then from
Bing. I remember some years ago people were walking with GPS devices
around forests to get some data (and actually the results of this were
much more accurate compared to what CLC offers). I agree though:
mapping landcover/landuse without aerial imagery is a real pain.

Well, if there are no objections from the mappers in your area,
continue to do the import, but I think it is worth pointing out that
sometimes it is better to wait a little bit and work with the
available sources and resources on different stuff, instead of
importing data which is not really convincing. Especially as you are
stating yourself that you would do better if you traced this by hand.

cheers,
Martin