[Imports] Import Proposal - Los Angeles County Land Use

[Aaron Lidman]

Conflation: Yeah that was probably the most time consuming part of 
preparing this data, it just involved too many other applications and 
moving data around a lot, I'll have to give it some thought. I was 
thinking about building a simple script for doing conflation more 
automatically. (specify desired osm tags/type + source data, it removes 
everything that overlaps those tags) Or maybe I should build more of 
that functionality into OSMLY for detecting overlapping data and 
presenting some kind of error?

Tags: I'm going to build functionality for merging geometry to get gnis 
tags as the other guys have brought up. Not sure how I could make it 
compare tags for possibly multiple items in a meaningful way. Is there 
anything like what you're imagining in JOSM or elsewhere I can get an 
idea from?

On 10/2/13 5:04 AM, Serge Wroclawski wrote:
> Aaron,
>
> I think this is really great, really smart, innovative and awesome
> work generally.
>
> The direction you're going is exactly along the trajectory that we're
> moving as a community, using the combination of people and tools and
> trying to figure out how to use them both where they can do the best
> job. As we do this, we're all going to have new ideas and tools, and
> as people try things out, we'll see where it goes.
>
> So kudos for taking this on, and kudos for developing a new workflow,
> with a new tool to help.
>
> All that said, I have a few questions, and a couple of concerns.
>
> My main concern is one you've already addressed, which is scope. Since
> your workflow is so new, would it be possible to start with only a
> single feature, show that it works, and then move on to another?
>
> My second concern is updating the data. While many of the features you
> list don't change annually, they do change over time, and so some
> thought on the future would be really good. This is where some
> conflation tools can come into play.  How about just considering the
> work it would take to do an update of the data, possibly even using
> the same tools and community effort?
>
> And now a question...
>
> Your tool does a great job at helping users compare the geometry of
> two features. How does it do about tag preservation? For example, if
> the mapped feature has less good geometry, but better tags, will that
> be shown somewhere?
>
> Thanks,
>
> - Serge
>