[Imports] Import of forests, farmland and other types of land cover for Sweden generated from Naturvårdsverkets Nationella Marktäckedata 2018

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

cold we

1. put the import on hold until its usefulness has been widely agreed,

2. take these comments, and Christoph's, back to the Swedish list and
ask someone impartial to summarize the discussion on the Swedish list to us?

It sounds unlikely to me that Christoph and Peda are the first to see
problems; they must have been aired (and ignored?) in the discussion on
the Swedish list as well!

Bye
Frederik

On 4/23/19 10:53 PM, Peter Barth wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I just read this thread. I had the impression that valid criticism and
> feedback by Christoph had been mostly ignored (well, as usual I'd say :/).
> I wouldn't have expected an import to start after this thread, but it
> was started a week after (as announced). So I had a quick look at the
> data and import and I'm not really surprised but I feel the need to
> comment on the low/bad quality I perceived from this quick peek.
> 
> I didn't read the plan btw, but wanted to read the ML if there really
> was community acceptance as any note about this was left out in this 
> thread. A huge thread, all swedish, so no idea if swedish community is 
> ok or not. Did they accept or decline or abstain?!
> 
> I continued with the status[1] to read some strange comment about DP 
> smoothing that resulted in some way shifting. Suspicious imho, so I 
> wanted to check these changesets. The first 16 of those changesets 
> uploaded nodes, 10k each of them (i.e. total of 160000 nodes). No ways 
> or relations. Ok, so a huge change, split into changesets leaving 
> traceability to the mapper instead of the importer. As always, I want
> to add. Changeset Nr. 17[2] actually adds something. Of course again 
> a quite large one but at least achavi[3] could load it. So let's have a 
> quick look.
> 
> Almost only new ways and it seems everything is tagged with
> landuse=forest, no matter if it's natural scrub or wetland or whatever
> else. Seems wrong to me and taginfo[4].
> 
> I opened a small test area in an editor, a small island[5]. It has an
> offset to all imageries out there. Ok, imagery can be wrong for sure.
> But outlines also don't match. Strange, but ok. A bit more to the east
> I noticed the lakeshore: It intersects the forests multiple times. 
> Strange. A bit to the south, the island Lövholmen intersects the forest
> yet again. And so on and so on.
> 
> From this quite small random sample I'd argue that this is a very low
> quality import. I'm not really astonished about that, but I'm
> questioning if it isn't time to increase our quality standards wrt
> imports and introduce import permissions as opposed to just ignore
> criticism and wait a week or two to import. No offense to Grigory, but 
> we see this again and again that someone with some programming skills 
> finds a data set to import, hacks and uses some tools, imports that and 
> expects the wider community to eventually fix all bugs. I think that 
> the bar for imported data should be way above the quality of an average 
> mapper's data.
> 
> Regards,
> Peda
> 
> [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Catalogue/NMD_2018_Import_Plan/Status_per_subarea
> [2] https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/69451277#map=11/59.0810/15.8871
> [3] https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=69451277#map=11
> [4] https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/natural=scrub#combinations
> [5] https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?editor=id#map=17/59.03507/16.07117
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Imports mailing list
> Imports at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports
> 

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frederik at remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"