I think this isn’t really an error. This estimation based on analyses of existing elements raba:id=1410 (currently classified as natural=heath) – the question was – “how would OSM mapper classify this element according to the satellite image”. More than 80% of this elements would be classified as natural:scrub, some of them as landuse=forest (sometimes it is very difficult to distinguish scrub from forest), very few as landuse=meadow (1410 are former agricultural areas now overgrowth).
Main reason for these classification “errors” is that the source for land cover is different (digital orthophoto 1:5000, covering last three years – the situation might already change, detail identification process made by experts – “normal” OSM mapper might not “see” the same). So, if someone would have the same knowledge and specially the same image source, the classification error would be much lower. I think this is not the case to go for indivudual verificatilon - if it would be the case - the whole import is under question. Martin On 23 November 2015 at 09:41, Martin Koppenhoefer <[email protected]> wrote: > > > sent from a phone > > > Am 22.11.2015 um 23:25 schrieb colored stone <[email protected] > >: > > > > We have concluded that natural=scrub corresponds to raba:id=1410 much > closely. Not really exact – but the estimation is than more than 80% of > existing elements of raba:id=1410 could be classified as natural=scrub. We > have concluded that these elements should be imported with tag > natural=scrub. > > > if there is really an error amount close to 20% for this class you should > verify all of them individually, it's definitely too high to be tolerated > to just import them blindly. > > > cheers > Martin
_______________________________________________ Imports mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports
