I don't really know enough about the NJ Landuse import to have an opinion, but three comments:
if there is landuse=scrub, that's fundamentally confused. The definition of scrub is not really the issue - OSM should reference and adopt the accepted definition in the related professional fields. But scrub is landcover (physical geography), not landuse (human geography). If it's natural=scrub and this is a combined landcover/landuse dataset, that's something else. Reading the natural=scrub page, I don't find the presence of some 20-ft trees inconsistent with the definition. If it's mostly trees to the point that the forest floor has reduced vegetation, then it's crossed over into forest. But if there are a few trees and mostly bushes, it's still scrub. It might be nice to add references to tags that are the boundary of scrub to that page, with a clue as to how to draw the line. Is there a newer dataset available, and/or a way for people to start with the old data and do things right (process, reviewed by towns)? If so, that argues more for the removal/start over. It's interesting that you say there are so many errors. The MassGIS data has been very good in terms of quality, to the point where that's not been a real issue, just how to handle it.
pgpnASfRDVp2d.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Imports-us mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports-us
