Re: [Talk-us] (Second attempt) Potential data source: Adirondack Park Freshwater Wetlands

Elliott Plack writes: I would argue that importing land-use that is difficult or tedious to trace...encourage(s) local mapping... I agree. OSM user nmixter and I contributed to a comprehensive landuse import in Santa Cruz County California starting in 2009. You

Re: [Talk-us] (Second attempt) Potential data source: Adirondack Park Freshwater Wetlands

Oops: Just realized I originally sent this reply privately: meant to send to the list. On 02/27/2016 05:18 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote: An import is great if it enables a community to go further, or forms the basis of solid work in the future. An import is great if it is one ingredient that makes

Re: [Talk-us] (Second attempt) Potential data source: Adirondack Park Freshwater Wetlands

I would argue that importing land-use that is difficult or tedious to trace would encourage local mapping for the following three reasons: 1. It shows others that an area of the map has received some attention. 2. It produces "gaps," i.e. places where there are no wetlands or water thus leaving a

Re: [Talk-us] (Second attempt) Potential data source: Adirondack Park Freshwater Wetlands

Kenny, On 02/27/2016 06:10 AM, Kevin Kenny wrote: > Given the > difficulties inherent in getting changes made by local mappers working > independently (the data are a bit difficult to verify in the field), > it's arguable that we should always use third-party sources to make > our maps and have

[Talk-us] (Second attempt) Potential data source: Adirondack Park Freshwater Wetlands

My apologies if this message turns out to be a duplicate. I mistakenly sent it from a mailbox that isn't subscribed to the lists. Potential data source: Adirondack Park Freshwater Wetlands This message is a 'trial balloon' for a potential import of (a subset of) the data in the series of data