[Imports] WRI Congo Basin forestry tracks import

[Rafael Avila Coya]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi, Christoph:

Thanks for your time.

On 16/02/15 22:15, Christoph Hormann wrote:
> On Monday 16 February 2015, Rafael Avila Coya wrote:
>>> 
>>> I could not find any information in your documentation on the 
>>> origin and production process for the source data.  This would
>>> be essential information to assess if this data is suitable for
>>> OSM.
>> 
>> Original data is in shapefile format. I've put the original files
>> in osm format to make it easier to open in JOSM. I can give you
>> access to the shapefiles if you need so.
>> 
>> The original files are given to me directly by the WRI staff.
> 
> That wasn't my question, i wanted to know how this data has been 
> produced, is it based on ground surveys? aerial imagery? satellite
>  images? what date? What accuracy specifications?  What purpose was
> it originally mapped for?

Ok. Just to be sure, I will ask WRI staff to give you a full answer
about this.

> 
>> All these highways are tracks, as they are used for forestry, not
>> for connection purposes.
> 
> Well - if the source data set is indeed limited to this type of
> road that would be fine.  From your documentation i see no
> indication it is though.  Knowing more about the data origin might
> help here.

Ok, let's wait for the full answer then.

> 
> In any case tagging surface=unpaved on highway=track only makes
> sense if there is individual evidence this particular track is
> unpaved.  Since highway=track is normally unpaved tagging
> surface=unpaved in addition just based on the general assumption is
> not a good idea.

Ok. Thinking twice you are right that tracks (specially in Africa) are
assumed to be unpaved. Anyway, a subset of the tracks for the CAR file
are tagged as type_surf=terre, so for those ways we can safely tag
them with surface=unpaved (it looks that as "terre" means "ground" in
French, we would better tag them as surface=ground or surface=dirt,
but I asked the staff and it seems "terre" is a value meaning
"unpaved" in general (it could be gravel or other kind of similar
surfaces)). So we will drop the surface tag unless we have that info
explicitly.

> 
>>> Do these roads really all have legal use restrictions, i.e. is
>>> it forbidden to use them except for forestry/agriculture?
>>> Otherwise access tags are not appropriate.
>> 
>> I suppose so. Most of the tracks just lead nowhere except for
>> logging purposes. Even if it was allowed to drive on them, it
>> would be useless except for staff involved in logging activities.
>> The same applies to the few agricultural tracks.
> 
> Again - access=* should only be used if there is evidence that
> there are legal use restrictions.
> 

I will ask explicitly about this. But, for example, you can get an
indication that access to these forestry (logging) tracks is
restricted looking to the tags of Equatorial Guinea: only 14 of the
total segments for that country aren't tagged as "Carretera
privada..." ("... private track" in Spanish). For the rest of
countries, "logging", "forestry" and similar are part of the original
description of the ways.

Legal matters in countries like CAR or DRC don't have the same meaning
as they would in many countries of Europe, Japan or Australia, for
example. Leaving a tag as access forestry will prevent anyone routing
around the area to accidentally driving into one of these tracks, if
they (or their GPS app) tells them they are forestry tracks. Even when
we know explicitly that access is restricted (like the example of
Equatorial Guinea), I don't think there will be anyone there stopping
you from entering the track.

Cheers,

Rafael.

- -- 
Twitter: http://twitter.com/ravilacoya

- --------------------------------

Por favor, non me envíe documentos con extensións .doc, .docx, .xls,
.xlsx, .ppt, .pptx, aínda podendoo facer,  non os abro.

Atendendo á lexislación vixente, empregue formatos estándares e abertos.

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenDocument#Tipos_de_ficheros
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with undefined - http://www.enigmail.net/
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=lvUs
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----