[Imports] Florida Landuse Import

Wed Mar 9 05:40:15 UTC 2022

Hello again,

So Frederik (which btw is part of the Data Working Group) said earlier this
morning that fdep:landuse_code should be left out since other mappers might
get confused over it and that other mappers could edit it over time, and
also the source can be determined from the 1st version changeset for each
feature. He also mentions it in discussion on the first import attempt: "I
notice that this has been silently ignored on the import that has been started,
instead opting to keep a "fdep:landuse_code" tag that was never mentioned
in any of the documentation/discussion before (and that I would have
objected to had it been presented).". With that being said, and since this
is coming down from DWG, fdep:landuse_code will be left out, which also
makes it easier to union similar land use tagged areas together (with the
Shift+J tool on JOSM). For example (also detailed on slack) on a very small
piece in Escambia County, FL with 7 features, I was able to combine 2 of
the features with others, dropping the total feature count to 5. Not sure
if these attached images function on mailing lists or not but the png with
the circled areas: Red is 6210 Cypress, Orange is 4410 coniferous
plantation, yellow is 4430 Forest regen areas, green is 6300 Wetland
Forested Mixed, and blue is 6170 mixed wetland hardwoods. 6170 and 6300
have the same tagging on the big table so i was able to merge those two
together, and for the 4430 it is clearly used for pine tree farming like
the 4410, the trees were just replanted a few years before imagery was
taken so I merged the two together in that case. The other image is the
final processed features overlaid over existing OSM data. No validator
errors on 1st run, yay! (the 8 other errors on it were from existing OSM
data unrelated to the import data). Note that these 5 features are NOT
uploaded to live data, this was just a test run on tagging features and
merging same-tag features in one small section of data. Pictures available
at https://imgur.com/a/I0XjNzs (apparently the mailing list hates pictures
directly attached to emails so we'll do this instead) Thanks,

-Kendall Mullenhour (username RollTideRoll_asdfjkll at
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/RollTideRoll_asdfjkll)

On Tue, Mar 8, 2022 at 11:33 PM Kendall Mullenhour <
kendallmullenhour at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello again,
>
> So Frederik (which btw is part of the Data Working Group) said earlier
> this morning that fdep:landuse_code should be left out since other mappers
> might get confused over it and that other mappers could edit it over time,
> and also the source can be determined from the 1st version changeset for
> each feature. He also mentions it in discussion on the first import
> attempt: "I notice that this has been silently ignored on the import that
> has been started, instead opting to keep a "fdep:landuse_code" tag that
> was never mentioned in any of the documentation/discussion before (and
> that I would have objected to had it been presented).". With that being
> said, and since this is coming down from DWG, fdep:landuse_code will be
> left out, which also makes it easier to union similar land use tagged areas
> together (with the Shift+J tool on JOSM). For example (also detailed on
> slack) on a very small piece in Escambia County, FL with 7 features, I was
> able to combine 2 of the features with others, dropping the total feature
> count to 5. Not sure if these attached images function on mailing lists or
> not but the png with the circled areas: Red is 6210 Cypress, Orange is 4410
> coniferous plantation, yellow is 4430 Forest regen areas, green is 6300
> Wetland Forested Mixed, and blue is 6170 mixed wetland hardwoods. 6170 and
> 6300 have the same tagging on the big table so i was able to merge those
> two together, and for the 4430 it is clearly used for pine tree farming
> like the 4410, the trees were just replanted a few years before imagery was
> taken so I merged the two together in that case. The other image is the
> final processed features overlaid over existing OSM data. No validator
> errors on 1st run, yay! (the 8 other errors on it were from existing OSM
> data unrelated to the import data). Note that these 5 features are NOT
> uploaded to live data, this was just a test run on tagging features and
> merging same-tag features in one small section of data. If the pictures do
> not appear as images or links please let me know. Thanks,
>
> -Kendall Mullenhour (username RollTideRoll_asdfjkll at https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/RollTideRoll_asdfjkll)
>
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 7, 2022 at 6:39 PM Matheus Gomes <matheus.gomes03 at hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Dear Kendall,
>>
>> From my previous (and ongoing) imports, OSM mappers suggested me to add
>> the source only in the changeset (it seems to be the norm on these
>> occasions).
>>
>> Regarding the fdep:landuse_code, I have the opinion that this is a valid
>> and important information to be retained on OSM. Future mappers can check
>> the “true” landuse of that polygon, and may do further refinements if
>> needed in the future (maybe some more accurate tags will be invented, who
>> knows). The usage of this tag can also serve as a “source” information,
>> given it is directly related to this import.
>>
>> PS.: I’m glad you took the import back to life and I would like also
>> thank Hiausirg for the initial effort.
>>
>> Best,
>> Matheus
>>
>> Em 7 de mar. de 2022, à(s) 19:19, Kendall Mullenhour <
>> kendallmullenhour at gmail.com> escreveu:
>>
>> Afternoon all,
>>
>> All comments regarding tags to date have been incorporated into the
>> master tagging table at
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Florida_Landuse_Import#Tagging_Plans.
>> Any other comments regarding tags is appreciated and will be incorporated
>> into the final product. Next on the agenda that hasn't been discussed on
>> this revision: the fdep:landuse_code tag from the previous import attempt.
>> Should this tag be added at all? I would like everyone's opinions on this
>> so we can hammer out a ruling on this matter. I also propose adding the tag
>> source=Florida Department of Environmental Protection Statewide Land Use
>> Land Cover to mark the source of the data (as Microsoft Buildings and Esri
>> Community Datasets already auto-add a source=* tag when you add things in
>> from those sources via RapiD or mapwithai JOSM plugin). Is this a good
>> source=* tag or should something else be used?
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> -Kendall Mullenhour (username RollTideRoll_asdfjkll at https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/RollTideRoll_asdfjkll)
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20220308/c114b031/attachment.htm>