[Imports] GDOŚ data import

Wojciech Myrda wmyrda at auticon.pl
Fri Jul 1 16:30:12 UTC 2016


Hi there,
I provide You with answers co your concerns below.

W dniu 09.06.2016 o 21:21, Frederik Ramm pisze:
> Hi,
>
> On 06/09/2016 09:28 AM, Wojciech Myrda wrote:
>> in the polish forum and the following discussion in the matter I have
>> made the actual data import
> You should have discussed here before. 
It was my first import and I must have missed that requirement while
reading that was needed prior to the import and understood that
discussion in the forum should be enough. Sorry about that. It will not
happen again.

> There's quite a few strange
> things about your import - tags that seem superfluous, and strange
> multipolygons like this
>
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6298112#map=15/51.3748/22.5863
>
> - do these four stripes really form one unit, legally?
All the polygons if they are part same relation share same INSPIRE code
tagged as "kodinspire" which determines if it was meant to be together
or not therefore yes they form one unit. I could not find any
information as of how that tag should be translated into other used in
OSM so I just left it in the original form just like provided by the
government.

> And, worst of all, is there *anything* on the ground about these areas,
> anything that makes them verifiable?
>
> Data that is not verifiable on the ground is generally unsuitable for
> OSM; exceptions can be made but there must be a very good reason for
> them. I really have difficulties seeing what the use of a 200 by 5 metre
> strip of "protect_class=19" somewhere in a Polish forest might be -
> someone who needs this data surely could simply open the government's
> shape file?
>
> The strength of OSM is that others can build on the data; go there, add
> information they see on the ground, improve data... your import doesn't
> seem to be amenable to that very much. Why did you import it - what is
> your use case?
>
> Bye
> Frederik
>
Borders are hardly noticeable in almost all of the circumstances and
unverifiable while walking around whether that is village, city, county,
region, state or even a country. Recent examples seems to show even that
one can easily go through and not notice the Schengen Treaty border.

Now hence they exist only virtually and are legally setup by the act
issued by government therefore government resource is the best possible
instance to for such a data. I am all for having people on improving
data present in the database, but speaking from the perspective on the
person that have added manually more data to OSM than most I believe it
is more important to get all the help we can get so we do not waste our
time trying to do manually what is present elsewhere and available for
us and import it.

In case of imported data of ecological use areas is important for
example to all of those doing work like logging in the forest as it is
forbidden to do so in certain times like bird nesting. Other uses are
easily found for which one example provided Pavel Machek, therefore I
believe that data should stay in OSM.

But the way during the import I have not added the main tag
leisure=nature_reserve which I believe should be in there as well.

Kind regards,
Wojciech

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: wmyrda.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 155 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/imports/attachments/20160701/5fe6761c/attachment.vcf>


More information about the Imports mailing list