> > Substantial changes are unwanted. But note that some shapefiles have > unneded extra nodes, > I have seen simple rectangle building mapped with 1200 nodes where 4 would > describe the same > shape. > > Such simplification are desirable and should be done also here if needed > and possible without > any real data loss.
Ok, I take note, Mateusz. I'll review the data to remove extra nodes when it's obvious they're redundant. I'll take a look at official texts to see so: those have maps of the protected areas too. Me and another editor will probably start the import process next week. Thanks for the feedback! O sáb., 14 de nov. de 2020 ás 12:34, Miguel Branco (<[email protected]>) escribiu: > Hi Martin, > > is the legally binding description of these areas in the attached maps, or >> is it a textual description and the maps are there for mere illustrational >> purpose, or is it about the sign delimited area on the ground? Which >> nominal scale are the published maps? Are the areas signposted on the >> ground? >> > > Yes, the source data files (government's shapefiles) contain the official > name, protection class category, protected area creation date and so on (as > law states). > About the maps scale, I can't tell exactly what's it, but it's a question > of a few metres (ie. in the map viewer I can appreciate if a building is > inside a protected area or not, just as government legal texts indicate). > In the field we can generally see indicators or information maps close to > roads or similar. Even in marine protected areas there's signal boats and > ships have signals of having entered one protected area. > > if you are sure that the mistakes are in OSM, am I right in guessing you >> are planning to prefer the official dataset in any case over existing data >> in OSM when there are differences? >> > > Yes, of course. The data to import has been published by a government. > Merge will conflate history but the true area is this one. The mistakes I > comment are simply because of drawing manually areas or confusing > overlaying protected areas. > > I am not sure which kind of "reduction" you are speaking about, if it >> could make the difference of a whole village being included or excluded I >> am sure that it is not an acceptable level of reduction/tolerance. I would >> rather see it the opposite way: not so unlikely that the official data has >> already been reduced compared to the (usually very precise "internal" >> official data), before publishing it as open data, and there might be some >> resulting details which could be seen as problematic on the micro level >> (e.g. if a road or a waterway is part of the area or not, or maybe is after >> the simplification half in half out, etc.) Also these areas will be >> delimited by other features (roads, fields, settlements, waterways, etc.), >> and ideally there boundaries in OSM should match with the representation of >> these things in OSM (this means more consistency as matching the exact same >> coordinates, which will be relating to official data. Hopefully these >> differences are small anyway, but a few meters can already make the >> difference whether a road or a stream is included or excluded, or is half >> in half out. >> > > I meant to manually simplify areas. But as you say, I think that's not > acceptable: we need to import those areas as they are in the shapefiles. We > are speaking about a official dataset that is constantly used in local > administration to decide anything (ie. if a house, road... is inside a > natural park or not and if requires, can be granted something...). > > See you, > Miguel > >
_______________________________________________ Imports mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports
