[Imports] Galician protected areas

Miguel Branco mgl.branco at gmail.com
Sat Nov 14 11:34:03 UTC 2020


Hi Martin,

is the legally binding description of these areas in the attached maps, or
> is it a textual description and the maps are there for mere illustrational
> purpose, or is it about the sign delimited area on the ground? Which
> nominal scale are the published maps? Are the areas signposted on the
> ground?
>

Yes, the source data files (government's shapefiles) contain the official
name, protection class category, protected area creation date and so on (as
law states).
About the maps scale, I can't tell exactly what's it, but it's a question
of a few metres (ie. in the map viewer I can appreciate if a building is
inside a protected area or not, just as government legal texts indicate).
In the field we can generally see indicators or information maps close to
roads or similar. Even in marine protected areas there's signal boats and
ships have signals of having entered one protected area.

if you are sure that the mistakes are in OSM, am I right in guessing you
> are planning to prefer the official dataset in any case over existing data
> in OSM when there are differences?
>

 Yes, of course. The data to import has been published by a government.
Merge will conflate history but the true area is this one. The mistakes I
comment are simply because of drawing manually areas or confusing
overlaying protected areas.

I am not sure which kind of "reduction"  you are speaking about, if it
> could make the difference of a whole village being included or excluded I
> am sure that it is not an acceptable level of reduction/tolerance. I would
> rather see it the opposite way: not so unlikely that the official data has
> already been reduced compared to the (usually very precise "internal"
> official  data), before publishing it as open data, and there might be some
> resulting details which could be seen as problematic on the micro level
> (e.g. if a road or a waterway is part of the area or not, or maybe is after
> the simplification half in half out, etc.) Also these areas will be
> delimited by other features (roads, fields, settlements, waterways, etc.),
> and ideally there boundaries in OSM should match with the representation of
> these things in OSM (this means more consistency as matching the exact same
> coordinates, which will be relating to official data. Hopefully these
> differences are small anyway, but a few meters can already make the
> difference whether a road or a stream is included or excluded, or is half
> in half out.
>

I meant to manually simplify areas. But as you say, I think that's not
acceptable: we need to import those areas as they are in the shapefiles. We
are speaking about a official dataset that is constantly used in local
administration to decide anything (ie. if a house, road... is inside a
natural park or not and if requires, can be granted something...).

See you,
Miguel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/imports/attachments/20201114/75a62855/attachment.htm>


More information about the Imports mailing list