[Talk-it] Fwd: Re: [Imports] Sabbioneta buildings import

Andrea Musuruane musuruan a gmail.com
Gio 8 Feb 2018 13:58:05 UTC


*Resending without attached picture.*

On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 2:49 PM, Andrea Musuruane <musuruan at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Giorgio,
>
> On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 6:00 PM, Giorgio Limonta <
> giorgio.limonta80 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 5, 2018, Andrea Musuruane musuruan at gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> Ciao Giorgio,
>>> I always find your e-mails in the spam folder because the "message has a
>>> from address in yahoo.it but has failed yahoo.it's required tests for
>>> authentication".
>>
>>
>>
>> I am apologize, I try with my google mail account
>>
>>
> It's better. Thank you.
>
>
>>
>>
>>> You didn't provide any documentation at that time. It was just a single
>>> mail about a possible import. You then disappeared for about 3 and a half
>>> months.
>>
>>
>>
>> You right but please consider that for me was not so easy to describe the
>> import plan to the Municipality of Sabbioneta (what is OSM, why it’s
>> important to share the information, etc.) and after this to obtain the
>> license.
>>
>>
> I know it's not simple and I really thank you for what you achieved.
>
>
>
>> I do believe it's not a complex import but the review process is
>>> performed to find possible issues and avoid later troubles with bad
>>> imported data (and I already found out some problems with your translated
>>> data). There is no need to rush :-)
>>
>>
>>
>> Ok I understand, I’ll go slower, I just hope not to stop ;) About this I
>> am really sorry for all this mails but I thought that the import procedure
>> was less complicated because it's my first -and maybe the last- time that I
>> propose an import. At last I just want to underline that it's very
>> important for the goals of our projects because the OSM map don't have
>> building in the UNESCO site (otherwise I wouldn't ever had propose an
>> import process).
>>
>>
> I understand this is your first import (and I definitely hope it's not
> your last!). It's really difficult to get things right the first time.
> Imports are not easy tasks - there are so much things to pay attention to.
>
> I find your goal valuable. Having buildings for Sabbioneta (BTW, it's nice
> place I visited some moons ago :-)) in OSM is definitely welcome.
>
>
>>  The "About & Goals" chapter you use past tenses but most of the actions
>> still have to happen.
>>
>>
> OK.
>
>
>> The "Schedule" chapter is missing.
>>>
>>
> Fine, but English can be improved:
>
> *The Municipality of Sabbioneta released a written permission in December
> 2017 stating it allows works derived from the "Carta Tecnica Comunale" to
> be distributed under the ODbL. My aim is to upload building data by the end
> of February 2018. *
>
>
>> "Import Type" section in "Import Data" chapter is missing. You should
>>> likely say your import is a one-time import, you won't use automated
>>> scripts, all the tags will be entered manually and data will be imported in
>>> the OSM database using JOSM.
>>
>>
>>
>> I hope that everything is clearer now
>>
>>
> Yes, much better, thanks.
>
> English can be improved:
> *This is a one-time import. The dataset will be uploaded as a single
> changeset without using an automated script. All the tags will be entered
> manually and the dataset will be uploaded using JOSM.*
>
>
>
>> You should upload the original dataset.
>>
>>
>>
>> I can't. the Municipality license it's just to extract the data and share
>> throught Osm.
>>
>>
> I think it's fine but, if possible, I'd like to have a more authoritative
> (i.e. legal) opinion about this: we can't see the source data set but we're
> allowed to derive works from it.
>
>
>> "Data license" should link to a text copy of the ODbL.
>>> "Type of license" should be "ODbL".
>>
>>
>>
>> Done (I hope)
>>
>>
> This is strictly linked with the previous point.
>
> *Data license:* *proprietary* (owned by the Municipality of Sabbioneta)
>
> [...]
>
> *ODbL Compliance verified:* Municipality of Sabbioneta has agreed to
> license *derived* data under the ODbL
> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ODbL>.
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>> It's fine for me, but please note that you have entered an unwanted
>>> space in the wiki (source= Comune di Sabbioneta - Carta Tecnica Comunale).
>>
>>
>>
>> Fixed.
>>
>>
> OK.
>
>
>>
>>
>>> As I said, I strongly encourage to use them.
>>> Source data license is not implied. Different data sources can be
>>> distributed under different licenses.
>>>
>>> I noticed that logging in is required to download the data. This is not
>>> very friendly towards people without a gmail account. Can you please remove
>>> this limitation?
>>
>>
>>
>> I move it in Dropbox hope it's better.
>>
>> Yes, thanks.
>
>> The data still have some issue:
>>> - adjacent buildings that are not connected
>>> - a building has self-intersecting ways
>>
>>
>> Fix it, sorry Josm marked as Advertising and I ignored them.
>>
>>
>
> JOSM validator still shows two warnings you must address.
>
>
>>
>> - churches are tagged with "denominati" (it should be denomination)
>>
>>
>> Yes sorry was a mistake depending to the shp field name limitation...
>>
>>
> Now the OSM file has both the "denominati"  and " "denomination" tags :-(
>
>
>>
>> - bell towers are tagged with man_made=campanile (shouldn't it be
>>> man_made=tower + tower:type=bell_tower?) and without the building tag. See
>>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:tower:type%3Dbell_tower
>>
>>
>> I found it in the wiki https://wiki.openstreetmap.org
>> /wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dcampanile
>>
>>
> This has been discussed in the past in the talk-it ML.
>
> The tag man_made=campanile is documented in the wiki but is used only 791
> times. Moreover the picture refers to the Swedish Klockstapel which is
> completely different from a "campanile". The normal tagging for a campanile
> is man_made=tower + tower:type= bell_tower (used 10595 times). Even the
> man_made=campanile wiki page suggest to use this tagging.
>
>
>> some buildings are split in different parts (still tagged as building=*)
>>> and you assign different heights to them. I'm not an expert about this but
>>> it seems this is not the right procedure. Please read
>>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:height#Height_of_buildings and
>>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Simple_3D_buildings
>>
>>
>> Was identified all single buildings that have different height to add in
>> a future mapping phase other tag to improve the detail map (level, color,
>> roof_,shape, etc.). That was made with a manually split procedure but I
>> have splited only the building (not the building part).
>>
>>
> Your tagging is wrong. Look at the following example.
>
> https://imgur.com/a/LbQoA
>
> This is a house. It is a single building. This also means you should have
> only one building tag on the building outline.
>
> But you made two buildings (i.e. with two building tags): one for the
> lower part (a multi polygon) and one for the higher part (a closed way).
> But different parts must be tagged with building:part as explained on
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Simple_3D_buildings
>
>
>
>> I have some troubles with your conflation phase which is summarized as
>>> "Merge the tag and the history of the existing features through the JOSM
>>> Utilsplugin2 plugin;".  It's not clear, at least to me, how Utilsplugin2 is
>>> helpful in this context. I suppose (because you didn't write it) you'll use
>>> the "Copy tags from previous selection (Shift+R)" feature.
>>
>>
>>
>> That was my original plan
>>
>>
>>
>>> BTW, isn't it simpler and less error prone to use the "More Tools ->
>>> Replace geometry" tool?
>>
>>
>>
>> That was a suggestion from the talk-it, but I will return to my original
>> plan.
>>
>>
> Your plan now is "Merge the tags from the existing features using the
> "Copy selected key(s)/Value(s)" and the "Past tag" tools;"
>
> Please use the "More Tools -> Replace geometry" tool. You have to select
> the new feature (e.g. the one derived from the CTC) and the current
> feature. The tool will preserve the feature history (which is really
> recommanded), it will merge the tags (prompting you to resolve possible
> conflicts) and it will use the new geometry - all in one shot.
>
>
>> QA phase is still missing. Do you plan to use some kind of validator
>>> (e.g.. JOSM validator)? When? Do you plan to do some kind of post import
>>> verification? How?
>>
>>
>>
>> QA it's made. As I wrote above after the import I will work a lot on the
>> Sabbioneta area so I will verification and monitoring all the changeset and
>> I will any potential mistakes.
>>
>>
> Right now the plan is "The Topology Checker QGIS Plugin and the Josm
> validator to prevent most problems before uploading the data."
>
> Please add something about what you will do *after* the import. For
> example, you can use again the JOSM validator (on the whole OSM data and
> not only on the buildings) and/or use Osmose.
>
> BTW, how will you merge POI on nodes and POI on buildings? For example the
> Teatro Olimpico and the townhall?
>
> If you struggle to follow this thread in English, we can continue in
> Italian on the talk-it mailing list.
>
> Bye,
>
> Andrea
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-it/attachments/20180208/0aa1c5a5/attachment-0001.html>


Maggiori informazioni sulla lista Talk-it