[Imports] Fwd: Importing West Virginia State Forests Boundary

[Attila Kun]

I have for example ssterling-was-taken, a local West Virginian, who may 
help me monitor the process(I talk with him on a daily basis), or 
wolfgang8741 who has also a great knowledge of WV and lived in it. (and 
there are some others as well)

For the existing forest boundaries, i'm planning to keep them, but there 
is a State Forest boundary, which is partly done, I'm talking about 
Coopers Rock State Forest 
<https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/852541565>in Monongalia and Preston 
Counties, luckily all of the state forests don't overlap or anything, so 
adding ways into an existing multipolygon seems an easy thing.

I have pretty good knowledge of how multipolygons work after many trial 
and error.

Attila

P.S. if you say i can start doing my import, then i'll start, i'll be 
careful what i do, and thorough, since there are ways that are not in a 
multipolygon and it belongs to the same thing, in this case, State Forest.

On 8/11/2021 11:18 PM, Minh Nguyen wrote:
> Vào lúc 13:15 2021-08-11, Frederik Ramm đã viết:
>> * There's a bunch of bubbly residential areas that nobody tracing 
>> from aerial imagery would classify as such. For example, why is 
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/863679643 shaped the way it is and 
>> why does it have this little hole in the South? If that is the 
>> "official" data then maybe OSM is better off without it.
>
> To me, the specific characteristics of the imported landuse data in 
> Rhode Island are somewhat off-topic, since the proposal is to import a 
> different kind of data in a very different geography. But for what 
> it's worth, that little hole is apparently a pond. Reasonable people 
> have disagreed over whether to exclude a pond from landuse areas when 
> it sits at the edge between the two areas. I suppose the argument is 
> that a manual mapper would've added the pond, but don't say that too 
> loudly or someone will suggest a water import. ;-)
>
>> * Why do neighbouring large landuse polygons duplicate tens of 
>> thousands of nodes instead of being modelled as relations both 
>> sharing one way?
>
> If Brian had done that where I map, I would've pleaded for the import 
> to be reworked or reverted. Ways sharing nodes, sure, but modeling 
> landuse areas as relations just because they border each other would 
> be incredibly unfriendly to any mapper who has to maintain the data as 
> landuse changes in the future. Even then, there's debate over whether 
> landcover like woods should even be connected to landuse=residential, 
> due to things like wooded lots, which are very common where I map and 
> across much of West Virginia.
>
> I suspect your point about conlation would become more relevant if 
> there's any interest in importing an actual landuse dataset, given 
> Attila's prolific hand-drawing of landuse areas in West Virginia over 
> the past year. But anyways, back to boundaries...
>
>> (For example, since it appears that the plan is to import boundaries 
>> here, I would be interested to learn of any conflation plans with 
>> existing administrative boundaries if/where state forests should 
>> coincide with them?)
>
> Do you mean that the protected area relations should reuse the ways 
> that are members of the administrative boundary relations, or that 
> they should consist of new ways that share nodes with the existing 
> ways? Either form of conflation would be a rather aggressive step that 
> I would caution against even with manual mapping. Better to keep the 
> boundaries separate unless you know otherwise.
>
> In the U.S., state park boundaries correspond to property lines but, 
> like property lines, often don't neatly correspond to municipal or 
> county administrative boundaries. I'd imagine this to be especially 
> true in states that were surveyed with metes and bounds, like Rhode 
> Island and West Virginia. By contrast, boundaries are a bit neater 
> under the Public Land Survey System, which is why you often see a 
> checkerboard pattern in parklands out west. But just the other day I 
> mapped an incorporated town in Indiana (PLSS) that sits inside a state 
> park inside another state park, so the boundary situation is far from 
> rational no matter the survey method.
>
> The other mitigating factor is that West Virginia is one of the less 
> densely populated states, so I'd assume most state forest boundaries 
> would be somewhat far away from any municipal boundary.
>
> I do agree that local residents should help to monitor this import, 
> just in case there are any blind spots. Luckily, there are a couple 
> West Virginians on OSMUS Slack, so I'd encourage keeping them in the 
> loop, if for no other reason than they'll be partly responsible for 
> maintaining this data going forward.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/imports/attachments/20210811/1550097f/attachment-0001.htm>