[Imports] Spanish mountain ranges import.

[Sergio Quintero]

Hi, Mateusz, and thanks for your comments. I will try to answer your
questions the best I can:

OSM is not just copy of official data.


I absolutely agree. That's why all data imported will be carefully
inspected to check it's correctness and accuracy.

What if someone disagrees with how
this official dataset marks mountain
ranges?


The data source we are using comes from the main national geographic
institution of the country, and has been elaborated with the collaboration
and agreement of all regional governments and regional geographical
institutes of the whole territory. Not only that, it's exactly the same
data that has been used for decades to elaborate the MTN25, the National
Topographic Map of the country, it's in all respects and definitely
official data, and therefore, the names of the Sierras that appear in our
DB are unquestionably and by definition, their actual and real names.

If someone in the future have better or alternative data, or thinks that
all those institutions are wrong and the maps we have been using for decaes
have the wrong names / location of the "Sierras" on it, and has sources to
prove it, then our data should be corrected, for sure.


How one may verify which version
is correct?


By checking the quality and reliability of the provided data source. Of
course, more than one "correct" version is possible:
-If some particular Sierra has two different, alternative names,  we will
use the alt_name tag.
-If some Sierra has two different names in different languages (for
example, catalan and Spanish) we will strictly follow the well definied
rules that the spanish community has for these cases, which is using the
local official name of the element as the main name.
- It could also happen that some particular Sierra have a minor, local
name, in that case we will use the appropriate tag.
And so on. Everything is detailed in the wiki.


What if multiple people or sources differ
in how mountain ranges are located?


This could be a problem if the Sierras were mapped as areas, or even, in
some cases, as lines. Mapping the Sierras as nodes, which is the
recommended way (for good reasons) in our wiki, will eliminate this
problem. More about that later.


I would expect gigantic verifiability
issues here, and without resolving that
I would recommend not importing that.


First of all, I don't know the situation in other countries, but in Spain
mountain ranges ("Sierras") are a key element of any map, we are used to
use them as a basic reference, and much more important than that, for us
the concept of "Sierra" is much more than a simple line of mountains, it
also implies cultural elements, gastronomy, a distinctive way of life... It
really is a concept deeply connected with our culture, that's why the
Sierras are everywhere in our topographic maps [1], and that's why the
spanish OSM community agrees with the importance of having all of Sierras
correctly represented in OSM, at the same level as rivers, lakes, cities or
regions.

Having said that, we are going to import just two elements for each Sierra:

A) Name
B) Location

Regarding the verifiability of the names, I think it's already clear that
we are using the defacto standard names for our Sierras. Sierras are not
temporary elements, they have been there for eons, and their names haven't
changed for centuries. Our official maps reflect that names, but yes, as
any other source of the world, they could contain mistakes, of course.
However, that could hardly be used as an argument against the import, in my
opinion. On the contrary, that's the very nature of OSM: mistakes can be
corrected and incompletion can (and must) be completed.

Regarding the verifiability of the location, again, please keep in mind
that we are going to map the Sierras as nodes, and exact spacial accuracy
is simply not expectable nor aplicable here. We have been discussing this
aspect in the spanish community and we simply accept that, because it's
true nature, it's not possible to delimitate the exact location and limits
of a Sierra (or a city, for that matter). However, that doesn't mean that
Sierras don't exist or that they shouldn't be represented in OSM, a map
without Sierras is an incomplete map, just as a map without cities or
rivers: they are essential elements on our maps and we need to represent
them the best way we can.

And "we copy official data, everything else
will be reverted, changes are not allowed"
is not a good solution.


Nobody has said that. We are not trying to provide definitive and
untouchable data here, we are just trying to fill an important gap on our
map with the best and more reliable data source we have at this moment. But
as stated before, if someone in the future can provide better data from
better and more reliable sources, the information on the database should be
changed accordingly, of course.

[1]
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ES:Importaci%C3%B3n_NGBE_Alineaciones_monta%C3%B1osas#/media/File%3AEjemplo_Importaci%C3%B3n_mountain_range2.png

_______________________________________________
> 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/20210207/fa7327f8/attachment-0001.htm>