Changeset: 40853257
Aljezur
Closed by Reino Baptista
Tags
created_by | JOSM/1.5 (10526 en) |
---|---|
source | CLC |
Discussion
-
Comment from woodpeck
This appears to be an undiscussed and faulty import of data that's more than 10 years old, with partially overlapping polygons. Can you explain?
-
Comment from Reino Baptista
Dear Woodpeck,
The data edited on this changeset (and comment as source:CLC) is from the well known "Corine Land Cover 2006" data set and was inputted accordingly with the osm recommendations on http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Corine_Land_Cover.
In what concerns the data age please notice that I did use "Version 17 (12/2013) - Corine land cover 2006 is the year 2006 update of the first CLC database which was finalised in the early 1990s as part of the European Commission programme to COoRdinate INformation on the Environment (Corine) as described on http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data/clc-2006-vector-data-version-3.
The overlapping polygons are a misshape. I'm trying to load, roughly, one Portuguese county each time. In this case Aljezur.
Concomitantly, of course, I also tryed to harmonize new data with previous existing polygons.
I will gladly revise it.
RB
-
Comment from woodpeck
RB, the wiki page you cite is not a carte-blanche for undiscussed CLC imports. You are expected to discuss your import on the imports mailing list nonetheless. Many people are of the opinion that CLC data is too old to be valuable. You appear to have deleted a large amount of data, partly forest polygons that were drawn from aerial imagery and much more current and detailed compared to what you have imported, for example see this area:http://www.remote.org/frederik/tmp/deletion.png. Deleting and replacing data is NOT the right approach to "harmonize new data with previous existing polygons" - you are destroying careful and valuable work that people have invested and replacing it with older, less accurate data. Please stop this import immediately and repair the damage that you have done.
-
Comment from Reino Baptista
Dear Woodpeck,
Thank you for your opinion.
As I previously stated I did not erase any data.
I added, joined and updated.
After you kind contact I did start revising the CLC data I added, coincidentally, around the coordinates depicted on "deletion.png".
RB -
Comment from woodpeck
Dear RB, I am slightly concerned by your choice of words: "Thank you for your opinion". I might not have made myself clear enough. When I asked you to stop importing data, that was not an opinion, but a request of the OSMF Data Working Group that you would ignore at your own peril. I think the question of whether you deleted any data is not an "opinion" either; look at the list below this comment and you will see that this changeset alone has deleted 1 relation, 33 ways, and over 3500 nodes. Also a before-after comparison like I did in my image shows that detail was lost in the process.
-
Comment from Reino Baptista
Dear Woodpeck,
Please don't be alarm.
I used the word "opinion" just referring when you said: "Many people are of the opinion that CLC data is too old to be valuable" Finding this data was my motivation to do the work I did, since it dates from 12/2013. Now I know there are more opinions different from mine and certainly more correct. It was not, and is not, my intention to work outside the regulated parameters that come from OSMF Data Working Group and there personnel, which includes instructions/requests to stop importing more data. I never said that I would not accept what you are saying or ignore what you requested. Please don't make broad conclusions just because I used the word 'opinion'. My only concern now is to improve from my previous insertion of CLC. Has I told you before I already started to "harmonize new data with previous existing polygons" or as you put it "repair the damage that you have done". As I can't go back in time I started meticulously repairing, with the best of my knowledge, the all area, analyzing with same priority all the existent polygons. I'm willing to learn and I can not accept that I wont be able to do a better job and improve that part of the OSM map.
RB
-
Comment from ethylisocyanat
@woodpeck: What's the outcome of discussion? IMHO you should revert.
- 431866626, v1
- 431866649, v1
- 431866666, v1
- 431866695, v1
- 431866698, v1
- 431866701, v1
- 431866704, v1
- 431866707, v1
- 431866710, v1
- 431866714, v1
- 431866715, v1
- 431866717, v1
- 431866718, v1
- 431866720, v1
- 431866725, v1
- 431866726, v1
- 431866728, v1
- 431866730, v1
- 431866731, v1
- 431866733, v1
Relations (6)
Welcome to OpenStreetMap!
OpenStreetMap is a map of the world, created by people like you and free to use under an open license.
Hosting is supported by Fastly, OSMF corporate members, and other partners.
https://openstreetmap.org/copyright | https://openstreetmap.org |
Copyright OpenStreetMap and contributors, under an open license |