[Talk-GB] Birmingham Tree Import

Harry Wood mail at harrywood.co.uk
Mon May 8 01:55:53 UTC 2017

> On 27/04/2017 20:26, Brian Prangle wrote:

> I've annotated Harry's Import wiki page with some comments and ideas.

This one: 

I don't want you to think of it as *my* wiki page. Like any wiki page we should aim to reflect the balance of opinion on there. I tried to distill discussion so far. Actually we haven't discussed the tree tags all that much. I was summarising a lot from Will Phillips Mar 19th: 
...with a bit of my own opinion in stirred in.

There's a section of the wiki page 'Data fields'...
which you could fill in with more details. form, age, plot_number, and (as already mentioned) usrn, could all do with some explanation.

As for my own opinions on the tags, my main feeling is that they add up to quite a heavyweight transfer of database columns. I think I would suggest slimming out these ones entirely:
  site_name=LUDGATE HILL
  constituency=City Centre
Because (like the old is_in tag) these are not technically necessary, and not really appropriate for something as fine-grained and numerous as tree nodes.

> Apart from some posts  about the problems with email notifications of
> changeset discussions, there has been nothing to indicate where I take this
> import. I guess that's because the initative is really down to me.

Yes. I guess the question now is whether it's necessary to fix some aspects of the tagging via a corrective bulk edit, and whether that should happen before or after finishing off the last bit of the import.

You said you've done quadrants of the city: NW,SW & SE completed. So just the NE quadrant to finish off. You've added 42,974 so far, so there's what? another ~15,000 trees to add?  To me it seems reasonable to just finish that off. That leaves us with a consistent uniform set of trees tagged the same way (to fix if needed).


More information about the Talk-GB mailing list