Hi, What do you mean by "don't do automatic mass import". How do you import it technically?
What I meant by "no automatic import" is that there you end with sharing of the data (as .osm files) which can be loaded to JOSM (or Potlach). Then, when someone does mapping of a region then this data will be added. Important that there is someone (possibly local) who is manually merging the data before uploading, then you would have check/quality of the data and what is even much more important: you have someone at least morally responsible for later updates of this region. If you do have big experienced community who covers every square km of the country, then maybe you can skip this. We have active updaters for less than 5% of the area now; but CLC data for 100% area. So 95% of our data is unmaintained, which is no good in long run. It is better to have less data, but with good community coverage. If you have data, but no community, then you have dead and rotting data. If you have community, you will eventually have nice and live data anyway. I know, building community first is way harder and takes time, possibly years. Just importing data is therefore so tempting. One specific statement what I have heard from newbies several times: I checked my village, there was already really nice map (mostly CLC, but we/I have done also other importss), and I hesitated to touch it, maybe I do something wrong. Also it is technically much harder to add ways and missing lakes in-between existing areas. So with imports you make entry for new community members much harder. It is better to keep map "not complete", so local community can start with simple roads and buidings; then they discover that there is also CLC and other existing vector data sources somewhere, and then they have courage and skills to add and merge this complex data. So I cannot stop repeating it: community must come first. -- Jaak On 04.11.2012, at 11:33, László Csatlós wrote: > Thanks for the advices! > > As we see, the CLC data has quite really poor resolution so we don't do > automatic mass import. We created a script that simplifies the ways and > deletes the useless points so the 1/3 of the points are deleted. > Then, we cut the whole data by settlements (admin level 8), so we get 3165 > smaller landuse data file. > At last we process them by settlement and trying to adjust to bing or another > satellite images (where available). > > I think, this procedure will results a bit better map than the simple mass > import. > You can check the results at this LINK. There is much more detailed and has a > lot of additional informations, that CLC not contains. > > Laci > > > 2012/11/4 Jaak Laineste <[email protected]> > Hello, > > Couple of points: > > 1. I would not suggest to import landuse:farm polygons at all. We did it in > Estonia and now try to get rid of them, as they are not accurate (due to > Corine definitions) and they make editing in countryside, especially with > Potlach much harder. Now you have a lot of multipolygon relations which are > not for average mapper etc. We have had a lot of complaints after import > about it. Just pick as little data as possible : forests, wetlands perhaps. > Mapping should be fun, and remain so, but with all Corine multipolygons you > will make it quite a pain. > > 2. Test import import in one region and try to do manual mapping in the same > area for a few months. See if community can handle it. You do not need to > hurry. Removing already imported stuff is much more harder, you'll already > have some additional edits done then etc. > > 3. Full attribution would fit better to changeses, not to each object. You > have quite long one, again a lot of "garbage" is generated. Short reference > source:CLC would be enough for objects, so later you can easily. > > ps. I am importer of Estonian CLC data and I do regret it. I would not > suggest to massimport it (and most other datasets) at all. Today I would just > publish it for manual copypasting and reference (like aerials). But I cannot > stop you, this is probably one of those mistakes what everyone needs to do > themselves. I do know the temptation to have nice colored map with Corine, > but OSM is not about as detailed map as you can do. It is about fun of > mapping. > > -- > Jaak > > On 03.11.2012, at 23:19, László Csatlós wrote: > >> Yes, you're right about the source label. Could you explain, what would be >> the best way? Maybe a copyright notice at the Hungarian CLC import wiki page? >> >> CLC:code is not necessary at all, so I will ask the others about that. >> >> 2012/11/3 Paul Norman <[email protected]> >> I believe the opinion of the LWG is that a source tag cannot be used to >> satisfy a legal requirement. Keep in mind that source tags are routinely >> stripped from the database by many tools (e.g. osm2pgsql). There are no >> “required” tags that are legally required. >> >> >> >> Because only 311 maps to landuse=forest+wood=deciduous the CLC:code >> duplicates the tagging. Is it not possible to then remove CLC:code? >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Imports mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports > >
_______________________________________________ Imports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports
