[Imports] Galician protected areas

[Miguel Branco]

>
> Substantial changes are unwanted. But note that some shapefiles have
> unneded extra nodes,
> I have seen simple rectangle building mapped with 1200 nodes where 4 would
> describe the same
> shape.
>
> Such simplification are desirable and should be done also here if needed
> and possible without
> any real data loss.


Ok, I take note, Mateusz. I'll review the data to remove extra nodes when
it's obvious they're redundant. I'll take a look at official texts to see
so: those have maps of the protected areas too.
Me and another editor will probably start the import process next week.
Thanks for the feedback!


O sáb., 14 de nov. de 2020 ás 12:34, Miguel Branco (<mgl.branco at gmail.com>)
escribiu:

> 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/20201117/78832c94/attachment.htm>