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

[Greg Troxel]

"Alan & Ruth Bragg" <alan.ruth.bragg at gmail.com> writes:

> 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.

I basically agree that things that are bad should go.   What I am not
convinced of is that everything from this import is bad, especially the
data that has been fixed up by hand.  OSM norms say that if we
essentially revert part of the import, we can't remove things that have
been edited by humans without human review.

> 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

Good question.

> 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

That's  not where this came from, or at least the things I think exist
that I am trying to talk about.  It's from the "open space" layer, and I
tried to make a link to oliver to show it.

http://maps.massgis.state.ma.us/map_ol/oliver.php?lyrs=Detailed%20Features~Basemaps_MassGISBasemapWithLabels2~|Openspace%20by%20Primary%20Purpose~massgis:GISDATA.OPENSPACE_POLY~GISDATA.OPENSPACE_POLY::Primary_Purpose&bbox=-72.67683288593928,42.288078240996306,-71.94349548359705,42.61132312583251&coordUnit=m&measureUnit=m&base=MassGIS%20Statewide%20Basemap&center=-8049530.6562264,5228613.7376413&zoom=11&opacity=1,1&baseO=1&filt=undefined|undefined

This is "openspace by primary purpose" and one of the purposes is "water
supply", which we evntually translated to landuse=reservoir_protection.

Now, I don't know how many there are, or how much patchwork there is.

Do you have a conceptual process for exactly what to delete, making sure
it is imported things that are unchanged or only have had bot edits?