Changeset: 46720785
Neary Lagoon
Closed by stevea
Tags
created_by | JOSM/1.5 (11639 en) |
---|---|
source | California Protected Areas Database (CPAD) – www.calands.org (December 2016) |
Discussion
-
Comment from mueschel
Hi,
You uploaded a huge sset of objects, which are mainly tagged with foreign tags which most likely should not appear in Osm. Could you check and correct this?
JanExamples:
ACCESS_TYP=Open Access
ACRES=48.743
AGNCY_ID=1328
AGNCY_LEV=City
AGNCY_NAME=Scotts Valley, City of
AGNCY_TYP=City Agency
AGNCY_WEB=http://www.scottsvalley.org/parks/parks_recs.html
COUNTY=Santa Cruz
DES_TP=Local Recreation Area
GAP_STS=4
LAYER=City
MNG_AGENCY=Scotts Valley, City of
MNG_AG_ID=1328
SUID_NMA=20820
UNIT_ID=17176
UNIT_NAME=Ladato Open Space -
Comment from stevea
I wouldn't say "huge" as it is a few dozen edits over the course of a few hours in a single day (and I'm not done yet) against the over 12,000 edits I have entered over the last eight years.
Is your problem with "foreign tags?" I kept these in to distinguish these CPAD polygons from the major landuse polygons (from SCCGIS, see our Santa Cruz County wiki) that I have manually kept improved (over three revisions and six years) and for which our county has won a "Gold Star Award" at BestOfOSM.org for "nearly perfect landuse." In addition, I recently won "Mapper of the Month" award and certainly don't want to "rustle any feathers" in the project.
However, I don't see a problem with these polygons, their tags, the slow and careful method by which I enter these and conflate them against existing data, as the tags they contain allow these CPAD polygon data (which frequently update) to be continually updated into the future, which I intend to do, similar to the way I update SCCGIS landuse polygons.
OSM and CPAD (callands.org) are in an excellent position to continue collaboration which "feeds" both of our map data in an ever-upward and ever-better way, so both data sets improve over time as we complement and improve each others geo data. That is a lofty goal, with wide and large benefits for many and is now being achieved.
So, in short, what is it you propose, exactly?
SteveA
California -
Comment from mueschel
I didn't complain about the import of the polygons as such. That's fine if it is done carefully.
I'd suggest to keep one ref tag only, like ref:CPAD. This should be sufficient to allow for future updates.Other tags like ACRES and COUNTY are just redundant because they can easily be retrieved from existing information in OSM. Some could be converted to matching OSM tags, like MNG_AGENCY -> operator.
Please, don't feel offended - I'm just monitoring new keys appearing in the database as most of them are entered by mistake.
-
Comment from stevea
Thank you for your quick reply. I can certainly endeavor to reduce and/or conflate tags on future CPAD polygon entries, as I do agree that they do contain a large amount of metadata. Some is useful and some is not (to OSM) and as long as a polygon in OSM can be identified as mapping back to a unique polygon in CPAD data, we will have the two-way flow of data identity we need to keep a good process going. This makes the UNIT_ID the most critical metadata tag for us to continue to use going forward.
OSM is made up of many people with many good ideas. It improves not only as we do good things (like adding high-quality data) but also as we listen to each other. I appreciate your thoughtful comments.
SteveA
California
Ways (2)
Relations (1)
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 |