Changeset: 46819034
add BCC tree data - add new data
Closed by brianboru
Tags
created_by | JOSM/1.5 (11639 en_GB) |
---|
Discussion
-
Comment from chillly
This is an import, right? Where's the unique userid? Where's the wiki import page? Where's the Imports mailing list discussion?
-
Comment from SomeoneElse
Hi Brian,
It looks like things may have got a bit ahead of themselves here.
The only list discussion that I can see for this is at https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb-westmidlands/2017-March/002127.html , and that's not really a discussion as much as you saying "I'd like to import some trees" and Rob saying "here's how to conflate the data". Almost none of https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Guidelines seems to have been followed, and there clearly seem to be issues with the data - taking just the first tree in this changeset https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4732520560 there's a bunch of duplicate information on it (site name, ward etc.) and the species info looks iffy to me (is "Betula sp" supposed to indicate more than just species, where one bit of plant is grafted onto another?).
Elsewhere https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/52.44699/-1.84369 suggests there's a bit of an offset between tree data and other data which at the very least is worth a bit of discussion.
Also TBH I'd really have expected some thought to be given to "how [Amey] propose to release data for additions and deletions" in https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb-westmidlands/2017-March/002127.html - that's surely key to keeping the data in OSM relevant and not just "some unmaintained import that someone did once".
As an aside, as I'm sure you're aware what trees Amey think they can get rid of and what trees the locals would rather they didn't has been a bit of an issue elsewhere https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/nov/28/sheffield-trees-dispute-scenes-putin-russia-nick-clegg-arrests :)
Usually what happens next when data like this "escapes" into OSM is that the person who imported it realises their mistake and reverts, before doing it properly (after discussion, without extraneous tags, and from an import account) next time.
I'd also cast the discussion net slightly wider than just the west mids list (even though these are just west mids trees), in order to catch the attention of the more "botanically minded" members of the community
It would be a shame if the first action after the creation of the OSM UK Chapter was a dodgy import containing some of the same failings as the original TIGER import, such as duplicate and irrelevant data :)
Best Regards,
Andy Townsend, on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group. -
Comment from pigsonthewing
Other issues are already being discussed elsewhere, but "Betula sp" (strictly, with italicised "Betula" and period in "sp.") is the correct taxonomic designation for a specimen of the genus Betula, whose exact species is not known.
-
Comment from SK53
@pigsonthewing: there is also a widely used genus tag, which is particularly appropriate for trees not identified to species (and generally useful because of the vagaries of the taxonomy of various street trees).
Nodes (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 |