[Talk-us] Proposed cleanup: NHD "rivers"

John Chambers jchamml at gmail.com
Tue Mar 22 22:47:32 GMT 2011


I know of least one 46006 that I would consider a river (Tussahaw
creek) , but doesn't have river in the name, but as bad as other NHD
data I've seen is, this little problem will be small.

upstream

On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 4:50 PM, Paul Norman <penorman at mac.com> wrote:
> If there are no objections to the retagging part I'll proceed with retagging
> FCodes 46003 and 46006 as documented on
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Pnorman/NHDCleanup
>
> I will not be joining waterways at this time.
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Paul Norman [mailto:penorman at mac.com]
>> Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2011 6:52 PM
>> To: 'Richard Welty'; talk-us at openstreetmap.org
>> Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Proposed cleanup: NHD "rivers"
>>
>> This is the view I subscribe to too. An example of two ways I would want
>> to join would be http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/68711710 and
>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/68710322
>> These differ only in nhd:com_id and they're both really short ways.
>>
>> In any case, I'd like to make it clear that there are two separate
>> parts.
>> The retagging of the ways, and the joining of them. The first one is a
>> serious issue, visible out to z8 in the rendering and hopefully
>> uncontroversial to change. The second one is a less important issue that
>> it seems more debate is required on.
>>
>> For the retagging, I've done up a table at
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Pnorman/NHDCleanup which
>> explains the changes I'm proposing. I should of thought of a table
>> earlier
>>
>> Also, I need to empathize that any data edited by users since the
>> imports won't be touched without manual review.
>>
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: Richard Welty [mailto:rwelty at averillpark.net]
>> > Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2011 5:38 PM
>> > To: talk-us at openstreetmap.org
>> > Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Proposed cleanup: NHD "rivers"
>> >
>> > On 3/20/11 8:16 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
>> > > On 3/20/2011 8:13 PM, Richard Welty wrote:
>> > >> d suggest using relations to group ways that are parts of named
>> > >> rivers rather than trying to combine the ways.
>> > >
>> > > If the only difference between the ways is that NHD assigns a
>> > > different ID number to them, not combining them seems silly.
>> > if the ids are consistent from one release to the next and there is
>> > any notion of doing an update later, then combining them destroys
>> > useful information.
>> >
>> > richard
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Talk-us mailing list
>> > Talk-us at openstreetmap.org
>> > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Talk-us mailing list
>> Talk-us at openstreetmap.org
>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>



More information about the Talk-us mailing list