[Talk-us] Fresno castradal imports
dale.puch at gmail.com
Fri Apr 27 02:48:10 BST 2012
Some of the problem my be a disconnect between county level mapping/import
talk and the country level talk. I personally like imports that are done
well, but also understand how poor imports can make things harder for
everyone. It looks like you guys have done a lot of work and many
improvements, and this is meant in a constructive light. I do not want to
discourage anyone, just get anyone making imports to measure three or four
times before cutting ;)
I see two entries on
(that link to the California imports) but several more on
the http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/California/Import page. Then even
more on http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Santa_Cruz_County,_Californiabut
no links to that from either. How much feedback did you get from
importers or mappers outside your local group?
One way to put it is how many people outside of the ones specifically
brought into the discussion commented on the imports, or even realized they
Would better planning and feedback have meant the import was uploaded and
DID NOT need lots of fix-up? It is a lot easier to play with the data
before uploading than it is after it is in the OSM database.
On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 6:26 PM, stevea <steveaOSM at softworkers.com> wrote:
> WernerP wrote:
>> User nmixter has been the user who did the import. I would recommend to
>> revert the changeset(s) and delete the useless stuff. In the small area I
>> checked there were many errors (overlapping lines, double nodes...). I
>> agree, that there is no way to fix stuff. User BiIbo modified many objects
>> (about 33 %), but it is not obvious what he really changed.
>> ...I think we should simply delete all objects without any osm-tags.
> User nmixter, in addition to being a friend of mine and frequent hiking
> buddy so we can upload our GPS tracks from the hike into OSM (what I
> consider "real OSM mapping") is likely one of the top contributors of OSM
> data on Earth. Really, by number of uploads, he may be the project's #1
> contributor (or was at one point in time).
> That said, I offer the following (not brief) history as deeper insight,
> not as mean-spirited or holier-than-thou.
> Nathan (Mixter) is a very earnest fellow when it comes to OSM. I believe
> him to have the utmost respect for our project, and he really wants the map
> to "bloom" as he puts it. Reading http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/**
> he talks about "ongoing" imports, usually county-at-a-time, using data
> which he scrupulously finds and decides to use only as he believes it from
> official sources and being of reasonable quality (or which, as I keep
> saying can be MADE INTO reasonable quality data). He talks about "turning
> the state brown" (California Farm Bureau data) and "turning the state
> green" (California State Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and
> Monitoring Program, FMMP data).
> He did help user:Apo42 (another hiking buddy of ours) well-integrate the
> Mid-Peninsula Regional Open Space Distric data so that much of that
> parkland (except closed-to-public areas) appears on the map, and offered
> good consensus (let's agree with MROSD that we shouldn't enter into OSM the
> closed-to-public areas, as did I) that Apo use a "landuse=common" tag on
> these not-quite-leisure=park areas; Nathan is no stranger when it comes to
> good discussion and offering and listening to a greater sense of consensus
> BEFORE he does an import/bulk upload.
> He also has worked with me extensively on the import of the Santa Cruz
> County GIS Department's official landuse data into OSM, the process of
> which we have documented extensively at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/**
> The way Nathan did this was an initial upload (which was fraught with
> technical problems), revert those (but not completely), do the second
> upload (which was better, but still filled with "noisy" data), and then
> worked closely with me on fixing up the data. Nathan might have done 10%
> to 20% of the fix-up, but I did the other 80% to 90% (having lived in Santa
> Cruz County for many decades) and it has taken me the better part of two
> years of rather frequent OSM editing to do so. During this time, Santa Cruz
> won a "Gold Star" award on BestOfOSM.org (one of just a handful in North
> America) for "nearly perfect landuse" but I myself will say that was not
> without huge effort on my part to correct thousands of serious mistakes in
> Nathan's import. Nonetheless, he-and-I-together made a large part of this
> possible. (Of course, we also stand on many shoulders of other OSM
> My point is that OSM + TIGER + TIGER-cleanup + early contributors + a
> noisy but OK import + some cleanup by the importer + years of local love in
> editing by yours truly (or anybody) = a Gold Star award! So, imports, done
> well (with consensus, good tags, assuring quality data...) really are worth
> doing. Just not haphazardly.
> About six months ago, Nathan "just did" a similar countywide import of
> FMMP data into neighboring (to Santa Cruz County) San Mateo County. This,
> too, had its rough edges, but it did cause the map to "bloom" from largely
> colorless white/blank areas (except urban "roaded" areas) into a "fairly
> good" mapped area showing landuse in colors which more-or-less respect both
> the original data, OSM's tags and mapnik rendering (without straying too
> close to or over the boundary of "coding for the renderer"). San Mateo
> County farm data were still hundreds of polygons, and took me the better
> part of a month to review and conclude "well, it's in the map and it looks
> OK, but I'm still not sure if I consider it good enough..." before
> more-or-less resigning myself to what Nathan did and my lack of knowledge
> of specific areas (which I can't see in Bing, for example). Other OSM
> editors (in the future) who know rural San Mateo County better than I do
> are just going to have to improve what nmixter did there. A reversion or
> deletion of the changesets would be overkill.
> Meanwhile, Nathan (on every hike we went on) seemed very eager to upload
> Monterey County, a rather huge area in California (it is over 100 miles
> from north to south and probably larger than Connecticut). I looked at an
> early and quite raw version of the dataset (and I still have it) and it was
> so overwhelming (not for my JOSM editor, Java environment or serious
> computing desktop, but rather as a single, comprehensible "thing" to
> mentally and visually parse at once) that I asked him to please hold off on
> uploading these data. I said I would help him massage the tags into "more
> appropriate for OSM" tags (something he apparently did not do for Fresno
> County) and to his credit, he HAS withheld the Monterey County upload.
> And, to Nathan's excellent credit, he DID enter a page on the "pending"
> Monterey County upload into OSM's wiki (http://wiki.openstreetmap.**
> which is largely a cut-and-paste of my "initial distillation of criticisms"
> of the dataset that I sent to him in a private message.
> However, as we now see, nmixter has sprayed Fresno with a large data
> upload, which looks to me (sorry, Nathan) like something which needs to be
> reverted in whole. As already noted here, many tags are superfluous, it is
> quite likely that good tests that Validator would have violently complained
> about were undone or simply ignored and uploaded anyway, and Nathan appears
> to not have tried to achieve consensus in a way that would have prevented
> this. That is the crux of the problem, not his raw data (which with some
> improvement and more consensus, can truly turn into something appropriate
> for OSM, in my opinion).
> Nathan goes by at least three OSM user accounts that I know of: nmixter,
> srmixter and eureka gold. It is usually the latter by which he does bulk
> uploads, but not always. His home/work areas around Hollister and Gilroy
> are truly something beautiful to behold (hand-drawn buildings, rich sets of
> Now come the most important issues in this missive: Nathan is earnest.
> He really wants to communicate among fellow OSMers, my personal evidence
> and experiences clearly establishes that (and I so attest), and he wants to
> upload quality data (and he even listens when I say to him "what you have
> now is poor quality data for OSM; don't upload those until we or others
> improve it so it is GOOD ENOUGH for OSM"). There is a kind of "hike and
> talk among your local fellow OSMers to achieve consensus..." and there is a
> "read (and contribute, when you have something important to say) the
> talk-us pages to achieve consensus..." and there is even a "put up a page
> in OSM's wiki to achieve consensus...". What seems to be sorely lacking is
> a sort of "mid-level" (countywide? statewide? it doesn't have to be by
> political boundaries) way of achieving consensus which we miss (and miss
> badly) here in the USA. User:nmixter is its latest example with his recent
> upload in Fresno.
> I'm personal-messaging him to read talk-us as we discuss this, and maybe
> he himself will chime in here. Let's give it a few days, as this channel
> can be a bit slow. He really wants to upload quality data, he just has a
> tendency towards an itchy trigger finger on his "upload" button when he
> feels a lack of consensus on whether his data is "ready for import." Yes,
> that is a problem, but I believe we can address it by better achieving
> better networked communication and consensus (how to better do so?) rather
> than "tearing him a new one" for one more messy upload. And of course, I
> can't speak FOR Nathan, but rather as somebody who has worked with him on
> OSM fairly closely regarding countywide bulk data imports/uploads for years
> Let's communicate our intentions and amongst each other, improve the map,
> and not isolate each other with boos and tear-downs. We really can work
> well (and better) together. These talk pages are part of that.
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us at openstreetmap.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Talk-us