Re: [Talk-us] Proposed import cleanup: NYSDEClands

Ok, it's reassuring that I'm not totally off in the weeds. Private inholdings in the state lands are more the rule than the exception in the Adirondacks, so I expect to have a great many untagged inner rings. I don't expect to cut out lakes. Since the idea is to tag the areas with

Re: [Talk-us] Proposed import cleanup: NYSDEClands

Yes, indeed, I was referring to Russ Nelson. On Jun 21, 2016 9:27 AM, "Russell Deffner" wrote: > Just making sure, as I know people have confused Russ's before: > > "Russ has expressed concern ... > Russ says that he did it ... > Russ intended..." > > I believe you're

Re: [Talk-us] Proposed import cleanup: NYSDEClands

On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 8:08 PM Kevin Kenny wrote: > The only way that I can see the current tagging working is if there > is some hidden coupling where it is understood that tags that apply > to an outer way of a multipolygon relation actually belong to the relation

Re: [Talk-us] Proposed import cleanup: NYSDEClands

Just making sure, as I know people have confused Russ's before: "Russ has expressed concern ... Russ says that he did it ... Russ intended..." I believe you're talking about RussNelson (https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/RussNelson) From the other Russ

Re: [Talk-us] Proposed import cleanup: NYSDEClands

Since I've not yet heard anything from the too-long message below, let me summarize my plea for help. My lack of understanding is blocking my attempts to do any repair on the NYS DEC Lands import, and making me concerned that the NYC DEP Watershed Recreation Areas import will need a revert. (The

Re: [Talk-us] Proposed import cleanup: NYSDEClands

Retrying because a previous attempt bounced: On 06/18/2016 12:26 AM, Russ Nelson wrote: > > Kevin Kenny writes: > > The rule for coalescing would be to group by facility number, so all > > the parcels of Burnt-Rossman Hills State Forest would be one relation, > > while the ones of adjacent

Re: [Talk-us] Proposed import cleanup: NYSDEClands

Kevin Kenny writes: > The rule for coalescing would be to group by facility number, so all > the parcels of Burnt-Rossman Hills State Forest would be one relation, > while the ones of adjacent Mallet Pond State Forest would be another. How's that going to work where people (e.g. me) have made

Re: [Talk-us] Proposed import cleanup: NYSDEClands

Kevin Kenny writes: > landuse=conservation is formally deprecated. This is the real bug. There should be a set of landuse= tags that are jointly exhaustive and mutually exclusive and this one is obviously missing. It describes exactly what you are trying to

Re: [Talk-us] Proposed import cleanup: NYSDEClands

On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 8:24 PM, Kevin Kenny wrote: > Now that I'm done with the NYC DEP Watershed Recreation Areas import, > I've got some bandwidth to spend on this cleanup again. I've added a sketch of the plan on the existing import page,

Re: [Talk-us] Proposed import cleanup: NYSDEClands

Now that I'm done with the NYC DEP Watershed Recreation Areas import, I've got some bandwidth to spend on this cleanup again. MECHANICAL EDITING I've come to the conclusion that a 'mechanical edit' is appropriate only in the sense that I will have a program providing me with suggested geometry

Re: [Talk-us] Proposed import cleanup: NYSDEClands

Oh, another question. Some of the New York state land parcels have rather complicated topology, and the previous import didn't get them entirely right: duplicated nodes, crossing ways, nodes close to other ways, and so on. Moreover, the upstream data are fairly arbitrarily divided. An example is

Re: [Talk-us] Proposed import cleanup: NYSDEClands

I've been continuing to investigate the NYS DEC Lands file, because, as Paul Norman identified, the original import is not up to current OSM standards. I'm not going to apologize for reimporting - a reimport will surely leave less of a mess than what is there! It's become clear to me that for

Re: [Talk-us] Proposed import cleanup: NYSDEClands

That makes sense. Keep it in mind for future cleanups where human mapper decisions are called for. Martijn > On May 19, 2016, at 10:26 AM, Paul Norman wrote: > > On 5/19/2016 10:24 AM, Martijn van Exel wrote: >> There may be cases where a MapRoulette challenge may be in

Re: [Talk-us] Proposed import cleanup: NYSDEClands

Hey Paul, I applaud your continuing efforts to detect and try to remedy ill informed (even if perhaps well intended) imports! There may be cases where a MapRoulette challenge may be in order? I am about to launch "New MapRoulette” or MapRoulette 2.0 which has native Overpass support to

[Talk-us] Proposed import cleanup: NYSDEClands

I was debugging some MP issues and came across the NYSDEClands import[1], done in 2010, consisting of natural areas. They have a number of unwanted tags[2], and a couple of other problems with their tags Because there's a relatively small number of them, I think a mechanical edit is the best