[Imports] Sonoma County California import

Mateusz Konieczny matkoniecz at tutanota.com
Wed Apr 28 20:25:53 UTC 2021


In general thanks for making import! It takes plenty of time but if done well
can allow to avoid spending mapping time on something already mapped
and to avoid drudgery of mapping buildings from aerial imagery.

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

ref:database_code=object_code is something that I deeply dislike, so personally 
I would remove it unless absolutely necessary.

It is confusing, not human readable, and sometimes scares/confuses newbies.

In most cases is never used or trusted too much if ever used.

Though it was used in many import and noone died from it and I am not a local mapper,
so treat it as a suggestion/opinion.

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

source=* tag definitely goes on changeset, not on every edited object

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

Have you tried opening upload files, downloading existing data and running JOSM validator? 

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

Wiki page does not mention explicitly that duplicating already existing building data
(conflation) is done, hopefully it is just missing from wiki page.

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

Have you checked whether building quality in that dataset is good enough for importing?

Apr 28, 2021, 21:11 by zyphlar at gmail.com:

> Absolutely, great suggestions, I've updated the wiki and license.
>
> I was planning to remove the x_son_p tags before final import as they are mostly useful for debugging, however if you think it's useful to keep database foreign keys like GID, or I also have a parcel use code available that may correlate to building type (either parseable now during import or perhaps in the future), I can leave one or both in. If there's no other major task remaining maybe I can put energy into correlating usecodes with OSM building types and then leave the x_son data completely out.
>
> Question, some imports seem to attach a source tag to every item they import, which seems excessive to me. Maybe I can just mark the source in the changesets?
>
> On Wed, Apr 28, 2021 at 6:22 AM Mateusz Konieczny via Imports <> imports at openstreetmap.org> > wrote:
>
>> Can you add license to >> https://github.com/zyphlar/sonoma-import/>>  repository,
>> so that this code would be potentially reusable by someone else?
>>
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Sonoma_County_Building_and_Address_Import
>> is missing info which tags will be used.
>>
>> For example in 
>> https://raw.githubusercontent.com/zyphlar/sonoma-import/main/out/clean/buildings_1000.osm
>> I see tags such as x_son_p:gid
>>
>> Apr 28, 2021, 05:58 by >> zyphlar at gmail.com>> :
>>
>>> Hi there!
>>>
>>> I think I'm ready for a review and approval of building and address import for
>>> Sonoma County California.Please see: >>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Sonoma_County_Building_and_Address_Import
>>> and: >>> https://github.com/zyphlar/sonoma-import/
>>> for status, details, and downloadable OSM files to preview the data.
>>>
>>> Local community involvement has unfortunately been lackluster, but 1ec5 and impiaaa
>>> have been invaluable in helping me get my first import together.
>>> Any and all feedback is appreciated!
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>  Imports mailing list
>>  >> Imports at openstreetmap.org
>>  >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports
>>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/imports/attachments/20210428/c2dce222/attachment-0001.htm>


More information about the Imports mailing list