[Imports] Fwd: Importing West Virginia State Forests Boundary

[Attila Kun]

Yeah, understood. There are more experienced area boundary editors than 
me so /probably /Skepticus will have a look on it, because as seeing 
from their changesets, they're from West Virginia and they're fixing 
boundaries.

Sterling is also gonna QA it, i hope with proper tools not just like 
checking it out "yea it looks fine" but also checks to other sources how 
it's like and stuff and then review how is it like. But of course if i 
ask Skepticus on the case to have a look at it, they might help in the 
matter.

On 8/14/2021 2:22 PM, Minh Nguyen wrote:
> Vào lúc 09:36 2021-08-13, Attila Kun đã viết:
>> I just noticed this in Seneca State Forest this close call of 
>> boundary overlapping to Rimel WMA, but because i'm doing the raw 
>> import where i check any data issues like self-intersections, 
>> incomplete boundaries etc, maybe me on the main account or someone 
>> else should fix this issue.
>>
>> I thoroughly checked the borders so where it was possible i said 
>> "yeah, this is OK" or "this should be fixed at certain points".
>>
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/13087452
>>
>> Also, for some reason Nominatim haven't cached the recently imported 
>> boundaries yet, but i hope it will do once.
>>
>> About the two existing forest boundaries i mentioned, they will be 
>> kept, since i have some uncertainty on the forest boundaries of it 
>> when compared the both, and the USGS version seemed to be more 
>> accurate, because that was only in the forest, the WVGIS boundary was 
>> overlapping a property.
>>
>> To be honest, most of the imports didn't even say a word if there's 
>> something wrong with them, so that's why i gave this attention.
>
> All the wildlife management areas in West Virginia were apparently 
> sourced from the USGS PAD-US database. [1] That national-level 
> database is aggregated from local sources, analogous to how TIGER and 
> NAD are compiled. Given the discussion on [1], I don't think we can be 
> sure that the imported WMA data lines up with the actual data in 
> PAD-US. Some of the WMA boundaries have been manually corrected based 
> on imagery overlays, but seemingly not all. [2] So definitely don't 
> conflate the WVDOF data to the existing WMA boundaries until we're 
> sure about that.
>
> [1] https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/85694417
> [2] https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/91787231
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/imports/attachments/20210814/e0a3c969/attachment.htm>