[Talk-us] Import of EPA data

[David Fawcett]

In looking more at all of the different types of things that EPA
includes in this data, I think that if it is appropriate to import
this data into OSM, it should be done carefully and thoughtfully.

The data includes everything from Federal Superfund sites (big sites,
lots of contamination) to Brownfields (potential contamination that
stands in the way of property redevelopment, but not necessarily any
contamination).

I don't see anything on the Map Features page that would fit with
these features as a whole.  I assume that one would also want to
develop some tags/attributes to characterize the different types of
features.  Maybe using some sort of EPA namespace.  epa_npl ?

I still think that this data is continually evolving and is better
used as a data source mashed on top of OSM.   If people feel that this
data really should be in OSM and that it can be improved and
maintained so that it does not misrepresent what is really going on, I
would think that the next step would be to start a conversation on the
tagging list to figure out the best way to describe it.

David.

On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 7:31 PM, Anthony <osm at inbox.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 2:40 PM, jamesmikedupont at googlemail.com
> <jamesmikedupont at googlemail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 8:27 PM, David Fawcett <david.fawcett at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > I also don't think that man_made=envionmental_hazard is an appropriate
>> > tag.
>>
>> That is easy to fix.
>
> Not automatically.  I've seen this tag on a sewage treatment facility and on
> a pool supplies shop.  And that's without really looking.  In the one case I
> deleted the tag, because I couldn't find the correct location.  In the
> other, I fixed the tag.
>
> By the way, in both cases the URL didn't work.  And they were both placed in
> the middle of the road (which in some ways is a good thing - it makes them
> easy to spot and fix by hand).
>
> With that in mind, I have somewhat mixed feelings about this.  As long as
> you're using tags that don't show up in the renderers, I guess it's not so
> bad.  But at least get the URL fixed.  In a few cases I tried to find what
> the tag was actually talking about, failed, and decided to just delete it.
>