[Imports] Florida Landuse Import

[Spencer Alves]

Some small tagging suggestions, after reading the wiki and then 
verifying in the sample:

1220 and 1320 seem more like residential=trailer_park than residential=urban

1210 and 1310 seem more like residential=single_family than 
residential=urban

1454 seems more like tourism=caravan_site than landuse=residential

A lot of the categories with landuse=industrial sound like they could be 
more specific, like industrial=oil with 1540, industrial=depot (or 
landuse=depot) with 8130, or industrial=shipyard (and 
landuse=industrial) with 1551.

1750 seems more like landuse=civic_admin than landuse=commercial

2400 seems like it's conflating landuse=vineyard and landuse=plant_nursey

by the way, "nursey" should be "nursery"

7410 sounds too broad to use with natural=scrub. from viewing, it seems 
just as likely to be a plains, forest, or brownfield

I don't see anything that gets mapped as landuse=retail, which makes me 
suspicious. What OSM calls "retail landuse" is often called "commercial" 
zoning in the US, and what OSM calls "commercial landuse" is often 
called "industrial parks" in the US. Be careful that you're not making 
that mistake.

It might be good to include a tag with the original code, to provide 
more detail and allow for later corrections. However, I don't think 
note=* is a good place for it, rather it should go in an import-specific 
tag. Something like fdep:level3, or fdep:landuse_code maybe?

The geometry in the sample looks good. I'm glad that there seem to be no 
overlaps within the data. I would agree with the others that 
multipolygons should be stripped to be outer rings only, or split when 
they are multiple outer rings.

On 2/22/22 9:34 AM, Hiausirg wrote:
> Hello,
> I am currently planning an landuse import covering (nearly) the 
> complete US State of Florida. The data is published by the Florida 
> Department of Enviromental Protection (=Public Domain) at 
> https://geodata.dep.state.fl.us/datasets/FDEP::current-landuse-landscape-support-index-lsi/about
>
> The data quality is extremely good. I think it is save to say that it 
> is far better than at least half of all existing landuse data in the 
> US. A distinction is made between normal farmland and fallow (unused) 
> farmland. Cutlines in forests for power-/pipelines are precisely cut 
> out, and so on. Which tags in the original dataset have been changed 
> to which OSM tags is listed on the wiki page: 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Hiausirg/Florida_Landuse_Import#Tagging_Plans
>
> The best way is to get convinced of the quality of the data for 
> yourself: 
> https://www.mediafire.com/file/53cbubxbkikcwi2/FLLanduse_NWF_Part3.osm/file 
> and 
> https://www.mediafire.com/file/8476ovczmljikvu/FLLanduse_NWF_Part7.osm/file 
> are two examples. Simply drag & drop into JOSM.
> 5 days ago I already posted about this project in the #local-florida 
> Slack channel. I also wrote directly to several people who map a lot 
> in Florida. There was almost only positive feedback about the data 
> quality. The only problem is that there are relatively often overlaps 
> of roads and land covers like natural=wood or similar. However, it 
> only happens with minor roads, and I don't think it's a big problem 
> per se.
>
> Conflation will be done largely manually with the JOSM validator. 
> Exact steps are described on the wikipage linked above. Since the 
> state is in most locations completely empty (regarding landuses), this 
> shouldn't take too long. Areas with already good coverage 
> (Jacksonville, Orlando, Tallahassee & Gainesville) won't be touched.
>
> Any questions?
> Greetings
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20220223/34670624/attachment.htm>