(Is there a Michigan-specific forum that we could take this to? We're probably boring the daylights out of most of talk-us.)
On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 9:16 PM Max Erickson <maxerick...@gmail.com> wrote: > The management units in the data are subunits of the state forests > still. For instance, "Gwinn Forest Management Unit" is/was part of the > Escanaba River State Forest. > > The question is which data is better to present to the average end > user. I guess if the state isn't using the state forest names anymore > it makes sense to have the management units in OSM. But then because > people know the older names, does it make sense to also have the state > forests? What I see in the data doesn't match your description. 'Unit_name' appears to be one of sixteen large rectangular regions, and then 'management_name' is a fairly small region. I've sliced the data both ways, and put the results in https://kbk.is-a-geek.net/tmp/mi_sf.zip, so that you can open the data in JOSM and see what's up with it. DO NOT IMPORT - the translation is very rough and doesn't even pass JOSM's validation - I'm simply sharing it so that locals can see whether either division makes any sense in the local context. Simply coalescing the data led to topological problems, as I anticipated. I did some jiggery-pokery with ST_Buffer in PostGIS to force the topology to be consistent. The result is that every parcel's boundary is set back 2.5 metres from where it was in the original data set. This is surely no big deal as far as the map is concerned, but cuts way back on the validation errors. _______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
