[Imports] Slovenia - Landuse import questions

Stefan Baebler stefan.baebler at gmail.com
Fri Dec 12 09:31:20 UTC 2014


Jaak, thanks for nicely justifying this exactly opposite perspective.
Complexity in terms of tagging, unnecesarry node density, multipolygon
abuse (eg two simple, unrelated, nearby patches of forest mapped as single
multipolygon relation, both having role=outer), something else or all of
that ?

thanks,
Štefan

On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 9:09 AM, Jaak Laineste (Nutiteq) <jaak at nutiteq.com>
wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I have general suggestion: do not try to bring all the original complexity
> of the data to OSM. OSM needs to remain maintainable by the crowd, but
> these details can be observed and verified by domain experts only. So use
> wood, forest etc - keep it as simple as possible. Otherwise you will make
> later maintenance much harder to your fellow editors. Many would be fooled
> by details - see that “this is so detailed, I cannot edit it, I do not know
> the details”, even after some years when the data is obviously outdated.
>
> If someone really needs high attribute details of your original data, then
> they can and should go to the original source anyway. They would need to do
> it anyway to get the latest updates.
>
> Do not map for (the sake of most detailed) map, map for the community.
>
> Jaak
>
> On 12 Dec 2014, at 09:41, Stefan Baebler <stefan.baebler at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Glen, thank you for sharing your experience!
>
> Yes, we did spend sime time already figuring out the proper tags and were
> wondering if we should continue with refining details (pointless if the
> features would not be imported).
>
> I am familiar with produce/trees/crop/species sub tags and we do plan to
> preserve this info where present (olive trees, hop garden, vine plant
> nursery...). The unresolved issue is that source contains 2 types of
> orchards:
> - id=1222: domestic, garden-like, non-dense, with few older, not purposely
> planted, but casually taken care-of various fruit trees around houses and
> - id=1221: intensively cared for, larger areas of young, regularly pruned
> trees of same species planted in rows after rows. Includes fruit, berries
> and nuts
> I was conidering landuse=plantation for the later one, but that tag is not
> widely used, nor documented well. Is there an established alternative?
>
> Then there is a third somwhat similar area:
> - id=1240: "other permanently planted areas" which might contain either
> dog rose bushes, elder trees, rowan trees, older non-intensive vines and
> similar
>
> Photo examples are available in
> http://rkg.gov.si/GERK/documents/RABA_IntKljuc_20131009.pdf (search for
> the id number)
>
> We did not dig into the various wetland areas yet (id 1321, 4100, 4210 and
> 4220).
>
> Any expert opinions on those areas?
>
> Thanks,
> Štefan
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 9:23 PM, Glen Barnes <barnaclebarnes at mac.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> b) import everything except "built-up and similar" even if tagging is not
>> perfect (including hop gardens, bare rock alpine areas etc, some not even
>> being rendered yet, invent (sub)tags if needed, makes some unmapped roads
>> nicely visible as strips of unused land, covers 95% of country)
>>
>>
>> This is where I would spend a lot of time working through all the
>> possible tags and coming up with the best approach for each layer. We did
>> this in NZ and you can see an example here -
>> http://linz2osm.openstreetmap.org.nz/data_dict/layer/boatramp_cl/info/.
>> Do not tag for the renderer - Others may well create their own maps which
>> do render the content. I wouldn’t 'dumb down’ any tags either. Orchards
>> already have a deep tagging scheme which allows you to specify the crops
>> that are planted - http://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dorchard
>> <http://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Tag:landuse=orchard>.
>>
>> You may also have some specific types of landform that is unique to your
>> area/culture. We did make up some new tag - For example we have pa sites in
>> NZ which are unique to our country and none of the other historic tags
>> really fit well. You should probably document these new tags on the OSM
>> wiki.
>>
>> In short if there is relevant content that can be imported it is better
>> to go a bit deeper in tagging rather than lighter. Just spend the time
>> proposing, debating and refining your tagging scheme (Some of our
>> discussions went back and further 5 times before we settled on the best
>> approach).
>>
>> Good luck.
>> Glen
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Imports mailing list
>> Imports at openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Imports mailing list
> Imports at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/imports/attachments/20141212/fb367211/attachment.html>


More information about the Imports mailing list