[Imports] Merced buildings and addresses import

Jason Remillard remillard.jason at gmail.com
Sat Oct 25 02:26:25 UTC 2014

Hi Nathan,

I loaded the data in JOSM. It has some weird tags for an import.

Fixme, n, fixme, gnis:* ,

It looks like this data has been merged with the existing OSM data,
otherwise why have gnis tags?

Some of the buildings that are in OSM overlap with the data. It is all
kind of confusing


On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 2:13 AM, Nathan Mixter <nmixter at gmail.com> wrote:
> Merced County Association of Governments has building footprints, addresses
> and other digital files that can be imported into OSM. GIS Analyst Natalia
> Austin was very helpful in quickly answering questions and confirmed that
> the files are public domain and can be freely used. The county has both
> addresses and building footprint files available. They may update the data
> in the future, but the county only does it as it has time and doesn't have a
> specific time schedule, so this will probably be a one-time import, although
> it may be worth checking back in the next couple years to see if they have
> made any major updates in either of the files. The import will include
> information merged and conflated into one file.
> I have downloaded with Turbo API the few buildings already in the county and
> have verified that none overlap with existing buildings. I left the existing
> buildings in place as much as possible and merged any existing  address
> nodes or pois manually with the new buildings. Unfortunately not every
> building in the county was digitalized, but most address points were. Where
> there was a direct one-to-one relation, I merged the address point with the
> building outline. When more than one point occupy a building, the nodes were
> kept separate from the building outline. I added 100s of buildings manually
> from imagery so blocks would have the missing outlines rather than just the
> address node.
> The original shapefiles included the name and type of business. The extra
> category allowed them to be matched to their corresponding OSM tags. Both
> name and OSM category have been included when possible, and the original
> tags were deleted. The shapefile created unnecessary relations with several
> of the buildings near each other. These have been manually removed as much
> as possible, leaving just the tags. I have gone through and tried to make
> sure the addresses that are not conflated with the buildings are as close to
> the building as possible and there are no overlapping address points or
> extra floating address points that don't correspond to anything. I expanded
> the street abbreviations and converted to proper case items that were in all
> caps.
> The JOSM file is available for review at
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/byclptdmlevy1p8/Merced%20buildings%20and%20addresses.osm?dl=0.
> See more on the import wiki page at
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Catalogue/Merced_County_Buildings
> .
> Please let me know with any thoughts, questions or concerns.
> Thanks,
> Nathan
> _______________________________________________
> Imports mailing list
> Imports at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports

More information about the Imports mailing list