[Imports] [Talk-us] GNIS tag removal proposal

Serge Wroclawski emacsen at gmail.com
Sun Sep 8 08:39:13 UTC 2013


Agreed- and most of why I put this away was that I felt the discussion
had gone off the rails, with people loudly objecting to things which
had never been proposed.

The other suggestions were:

* Rename identifier tags which have the incorrect tag (feature_id
which are not feature_id).

* Reclassify objects which are currently gnis but should be other
datasets (non-gnis).

These two suggestions cannot be done "organically" without a concerted
effort, so we may want to create a separate proposal just to handle
them, separate from this proposal.

- Serge

On Sun, Sep 8, 2013 at 4:54 AM, Paul Norman <penorman at mac.com> wrote:
> To recap and hopefully move forwards, I'm bringing this up again.
>> From: Serge Wroclawski [mailto:emacsen at gmail.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2013 1:55 PM
>> Subject: [Talk-us] GNIS tag removal proposal
>> Hi all,
>> I've been looking at the GNIS data and it's quite a mess.
>> As a step towards cleaning up the mess, I'd like to discuss removing
>> some extranious gnis tags in the editors (just as we do with TIGER and
>> other tags).
>> I would like to suggest that the editors remove the following tags
>> entirely:
>> gnis:ST_num
>> gnis:ST_alpha
>> gnis:feature_type
>> gnis:created
>> gnis:state_id
>> gnis:county_id
>> gnis:county_name
>> gnis:feature_type
>> gnis:import_uuid
>> gnis:reviewed
>> gnis:edited
>> gnis:description
>> gnis:County
>> gnis:Class
>> gnis:County_num
> To summarize the discussion
> - Several people objected to the removal of gnis:feature_id, and it's
>   removal was never proposed.
> - There was objection to this changing the last edited user, which it
>   wouldn't, it only removes tags when a user is editing the object
>   anyways.
>> In addition, I suggest that we remove two other tags conditionally.
>> I suggest we remove the "ele" tag unless the tag natural=peak is present
>> and that we remove "source" if the value for that tag is "USGS Geonames"
>> (which is just GNIS).
> - Other cases where ele is useful were pointed out (aeroway)
> Given that we don't currently have the technical ability to do this while
> adding to the discarded tag list is easy, I suggest we put this on hold
> until later. We need to have a better look at what GNIS data has an ele=*
> tag and where it is silly.
> Unless there are serious objections I plan to open a pull request adding
> listed tags to the discard list.
> To reiterate, this does NOT impact gnis:feature_id and the tags will ONLY
> be removed if someone is already editing the object.

More information about the Imports mailing list