[Talk-us-massachusetts] Should I write a wiki proposal to revert landuse=reservoir_watershed import

[Alan & Ruth Bragg]

Greg,
What do think about off-loading the data to a .osm file?
When the purpose of the data is determined and the polygons are
geographically correct and a maintenance plan is developed it could be
re-loaded.

Currently the aesthetics stink. Every tiny land parcel boundary is defined.
It's easy to find scores of contiguous parcels that could be grouped into
one.

Why do you suppose that very little land near the Quabbin is tagged
landuse=reservoir_watershed?
Here's the overpass query https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/KHO

MassGIS has a shp file that it doesn't look anything like our data. It
breaks the state up into 32 watersheds
https://docs.digital.mass.gov/dataset/massgis-data-major-watersheds
Alan


On Sat, Jul 13, 2019 at 2:27 PM Greg Troxel <gdt at lexort.com> wrote:

> "Alan & Ruth Bragg" <alan.ruth.bragg at gmail.com> writes:
>
> > Please take a look at this screenshot of typical reservoir_watershed
> > polygons  (red lines)
> > https://photos.app.goo.gl/rWWb22Syq5k3RPWh7
> > What I see is a proposed housing development and plot plans.
> >
> > 2,732  of all 2,740 landuse=reservoir_watershed polygons are in MA.
> >  There is one OSM wiki for the tag but it says nothing.
> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Item:Q17545
> > There is no system to maintain or validate the data.
> > Access to the land is unknown.
> > There is no way to identify the boundaries on the ground.
> > It's a spaghetti mess of lines making it hard to distinguish and map real
> > objects.
> > Makes OSM less friendly for new users.
> > The imported data doesn't match current MassGIS L3 overlay in most cases.
> > There is no rendering that displays the data.
> >  All this data, and much more is available from MassGIS  on the OLIVER
> site.
> > http://maps.massgis.state.ma.us/map_ol/oliver.php
>
>
> I'm not trying to say I'm opposed to removing these.  I was trying to
> ask if we know how this data relates to current MassGIS data and what
> that means.  So far, I don't understand that, and thus I don't feel that
> I can have an informed opinion about the situation.
>
> It may be possible to separate actual parcels that protect water
> supplies and these zones.   The former seems legitimate and useful, and
> the latter much less so.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us-massachusetts/attachments/20190713/31f44fd9/attachment.html>