[Imports] Fwd: Importing West Virginia State Forests Boundary

Fri Aug 13 12:16:00 UTC 2021

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/13085428

is owner tag really correct? Are they owning all area inside, including road parcels?

source tag in my opinion should be on changeset only, but if local community disagrees
feel free to ignore me

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/13085428#map=19/37.97114/-82.32515 
is it an actual geometry? (I know that USA protected areas often have weird shapes, but...)

Aug 13, 2021, 12:58 by attila at attilakundev.com:

>
>
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/109622189>  This is the      pilot import, that's where you can tell me what to correct etc.
>  
>  Alright, since this is a state forest, i think this should be      tagged with a protect_class tag, but the original tags of the      relation has nothing on the IUCN Classification. Brian told me      that such things are class 5 or 6, but there is no such a thing.      According to PAD US it's "Other Conservation Area" for IUCN      Category, meanwhile there is no such a class assigned in IUCN, so      if you could help in this case, i'd appreciate it. Thank you all      for your help in advance.
>
>
>
> On 8/13/2021 12:20 PM, Attila Kun      wrote:
>
>> P.S.      After consulting with Friendly_Ghost / Casper, I'll put the GNIS      feature ID on the relations / ways, because sometimes it's useful      to check data from GNIS website. But yeah, if the import needs to      be improved, or reverted because it doesn't meet the level of OSM,      leave me a comment on the changeset, which i'll provide soon. 
>>  
>>  On 8/13/2021 12:08 PM, Attila Kun wrote: 
>>  
>>
>>> By the way, I was the initiator to make        this import real, just i was like "I want someone else to do the        import rather me doing, because i didn't do such a boundary        import", but after you said this should be rethought, i'm going        to grab the opportunity, and do a pilot import as Friendly_Ghost        suggested on OSM World Discord this means, only one state forest        which is a multipolygon. 
>>>  
>>>  Also I'm going to be careful, since i saw some data mess in it,        especially at Coopers Rock S.F. and Cabwaylingo S.F. 
>>>  
>>>  I mean by mess, that there are some ways which belongs to the        same State Forest  as the main relation but they're not members        it and the data on them is just a redundancy i should say. So i        just delete the data from them and then add them to the main        relation as an outer member (because it's not in the big        relation but rather a smaller member outside of it). 
>>>  
>>>  To be honest. I started discussing it first on OSM US Slack,        because that's where i initiate my thoughts and many people like        Kevin Kenny, Minh, Brian added some comments on it (and        Sterling, the local West Virginian was astonished that i'm doing        this improvement"), what should i do, but no one had any        objections. If any of the OSM US Slack members say "this is not        alright", then i wouldn't have started it. 
>>>  
>>>  I always ask first before do anything, which has been always a        good trait of me, however we have to follow the OSM's guidelines        on import that means everything is okay, and I always like to        explain why data should be imported, especially when we got        permissions to use them. 
>>>  
>>>  Although if i don't do anything, then it won't be completed, so        i'll start importing Cabwaylingo State Forest first, and then        post here the results, and if you say, the data quality of it is        okay, i'll continue with the rest. Also, I'm going to say, I'm        going to delete the GNIS imported nodes, because those are        unnecessary, especially the fact that the relations have more        precise data and not like a data spam of when it was created        like the gnis: tags. 
>>>  
>>>  On 8/13/2021 10:00 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote: 
>>>  
>>>
>>>> Minh, 
>>>>  
>>>>  On 12.08.21 21:27, Minh Nguyen wrote: 
>>>>  
>>>>
>>>>> The next time someone proposes a            building import, I'll be bracing myself 
>>>>>  for a debate about the lack of associatedStreet relations in            an 
>>>>>  unrelated address import. 🙈 
>>>>>
>>>> I don't think you should make fun of my criticism. The two          imports are
>>>>  not "unrelated", as they are being executed by the same person          within a 
>>>>  timeframe of less than a year. 
>>>>  
>>>>  The person has not even seen fit to participate in the          discussion, 
>>>>  instead letting others do "the paperwork" for him, which to me          signifies 
>>>>  a certain unwillingness to take responsibility for their          actions. 
>>>>  
>>>>  Are those the qualities you are looking for in someone who          imports data 
>>>>  in the US? 
>>>>  
>>>>  The lack of relation use in that previous import might well be          a sign of 
>>>>  the importer being uncomfortable with relations overall. In a          boundary 
>>>>  import, the least you are looking for is that if a protected          area 
>>>>  boundary coincides with an adminisitrative boundary, this is          properly 
>>>>  recorded in OSM, rather than mindlessly throwing in more and          more 
>>>>  overlapping line geometries. 
>>>>  
>>>>  Here's an example where this has been done well: 
>>>>  
>>>>  >>>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5880036>>>>  "Scotts Basin          Wilderness 
>>>>  Study Area", which happens to coincide with the boundary of          Juab county 
>>>>  for a bit, and as a result they both share 
>>>>  >>>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/392275476>>>> . 
>>>>  
>>>>  Here on the other hand is an almost certainly bad import: 
>>>>  
>>>>  >>>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/35.1685/-109.6939>>>>  
>>>>  
>>>>  because whoever has imported the boundary of "Petrified Forest          National 
>>>>  Park" or the "Navajo Nation" (I haven't checked which came          first) has 
>>>>  allowed both to overlap, leading OSM to mistakenly claim that          a part of 
>>>>  the National Park lies inside the Aboriginal Lands. I don't          doubt that 
>>>>  both data sets came from some official source but in my          opinion it is 
>>>>  the duty of the importer, as part of proper conflation work,          to fix such 
>>>>  problems (which may occasionally even mean: do some research!)          rather 
>>>>  than just dumping it into OSM for someone else to care. 
>>>>  
>>>>  My mantra regarding imports is, if you don't have the time to          do it 
>>>>  right, let's wait for a volunteer who has that time, rather          than rushing 
>>>>  an import just do bring more coloured specks onto the map. 
>>>>  
>>>>  Bye 
>>>>  Frederik 
>>>>  
>>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>  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/20210813/526988b5/attachment.htm>