Hello Stellamaris, Thanks again for providing the file.
General Tagging Concerns: * There is still a source=* tag. I think Frederick recommended that the source tag only be put on the changesets * There is no need to have a county=* tag, people will know what county it is in by its location. * dristrict=*, also probably not needed for the same reason, but if it is included, I think gulu should be capitalized because it is a name (unless gulu is the type of district and not its name). * fee=Yes (Y is capitalized), key values should generally be in lower case * operational_status=Decommissioned (D is capitalized) key values should generally be in lower case (except for names) * There are probably more cases of values being capitalized which should not be, please check * operator=* This tag should generally name the operator, for example, "Gulu Water District". This dataset just indicates the type of operators, such as "institution", this probably should be in a operator:type=* tag [0] * It seems like there could be additional, or different, more specific, tagging used, such as for tanks (man_made=water_tower or man_made=storage_tank), taps, wells (man_made=water_well), springs, etc. Other Concerns: * Based on the photos and the proximity of the points to each other, there seem to be multiple points representing the same infrastructure in some cases, * Some points are located inside buildings, but the photos show that they are outside. You should adjust either the building or the water point during the import. * The file has 569 features. Given the possible duplicates, and the points located inside buildings, both of which should be reviewed, this is probably too many for a single upload, and should be split into multiple files. * It seems that in some cases where there is a tank that presumably feeds a tap, they have been collected separately. e.g. https://kc.humanitarianresponse.info/media/original?media_file=wava_stella%2Fattachments%2Fb5a9b6358d8141adabcb9d5c4f0dd560%2F8b086aee-1d4f-4270-9694-b723b0d48cf8%2F1652865747702.jpg, and https://kc.humanitarianresponse.info/media/original?media_file=wava_stella%2Fattachments%2Fb5a9b6358d8141adabcb9d5c4f0dd560%2Fe662dbd4-6604-4f4b-8b3f-5b596cd67925%2F1652866359311.jpg Mike [0] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:operator:type On Tue, Nov 8, 2022 at 10:17 PM Stellamaris Nakacwa <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear Phil, > Data is going through the cleaning process in JOSM at the moment. > Pump =yes (for both manual and powered). Pump = no f(or no pump > application at all). Some tanks do have pumping systems while others have > gutters. > > fee = yes (people pay to access water) Every water system establish > involves payment for establishment whether paid by individuals or the > government. > > Stellamaris > > > On Wed, Nov 9, 2022 at 12:08 AM Phil Wyatt <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi Stellamaris, >> >> >> >> I continue to have some concerns on the data and tagging, especially when >> looking at the associated photos. >> >> >> >> Things such as >> >> >> >> - protected_spring with pump=yes but no sign of any pump in the >> associated image? >> - >> >> https://kc.humanitarianresponse.info/media/original?media_file=wava_stella%2Fattachments%2Fb5a9b6358d8141adabcb9d5c4f0dd560%2F50ab737f-83b3-4441-95fd-f9f5ff4a6270%2F1653126241419.jpg >> - Type=tap, pump=yes, fee=yes but the image looks to be an elevated >> water tank/tower? >> - >> >> https://kc.humanitarianresponse.info/media/original?media_file=wava_stella%2Fattachments%2Fb5a9b6358d8141adabcb9d5c4f0dd560%2F31ea584e-cbb1-4b71-97a6-43308cd1480a%2F1652871763352.jpg >> - I am struggling to understand the pump tagging when many don’t seem >> to have a pump at all and the usual pump tagging would be one of >> powered/manual/no >> - https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dwater_well >> >> >> >> - Does fee=yes mean that a payment is made for delivery of water to >> the site (ie piped from somewhere else or via infrastructure from others) >> or is it that an end user pays for the water when obtained from the tap? >> >> >> >> Cheers - Phil >> >> >> >> *From:* Stellamaris Nakacwa <[email protected]> >> *Sent:* Wednesday, 9 November 2022 12:11 PM >> *To:* Mike Thompson <[email protected]> >> *Cc:* Imports OpenStreetMap.org <[email protected]> >> *Subject:* Re: [Imports] UPLOADING U-WIMP project data to osm >> >> >> >> I have put the files into this public repository >> <https://github.com/StellaWava/U-WIMP-OSM-DATA> and everyone should be >> able to access them. >> >> >> >> I have already created an import-specific osm username as directed by the >> imports wiki and I am going to follow what you and @*Andy Townsend *have >> suggested testing my upload. >> >> Hope to return with a success alert! >> >> >> >> Thank you all! >> >> >> >> Best, >> >> Stellamaris >> >> >> >> On Mon, Nov 7, 2022 at 6:18 PM Mike Thompson <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, Nov 7, 2022 at 2:44 PM Stellamaris Nakacwa <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> am not sure I can write an import/upload process before successfully >> uploading the data >> >> The whole point is to write the process instructions *before* you start >> the import/upload so the OSM community can review and provide feedback. I >> don't think these instructions have to be super complicated, and if you >> learn something during the process you can augment them later with "lessons >> learned" >> >> >> >> I will make sure that in the guide, I emphasize that for the new mappers >> as more, I am just going to simply edit my .csv and then reconvert it to a >> geojson. >> >> Ok, you should share a link to the full .csv, and a link to the final >> GeoJSON file after you have made the changes. This should be done well >> before the import/upload starts so that the community can review. >> >> >> >> >> >> I am following the normal JOSM edit guideline >> <https://toolbox.hotosm.org/pages/data-cleaning-upload-and-quality-assurance/5.1-data-cleaning-with-josm/> >> to perform the upload. [Downlaod data in AOI, merge, validate, upload] >> >> My data is just water points, nothing extra. So, I do not think I have >> anything complicated. >> >> You probably can either reference those guidelines in your proposal, or >> cut/paste from it. I don't think your process will be exactly as shown in >> those guidelines, so selectively cutting and pasting will probably be >> best. For one thing, you have one large file, and in the guidelines they >> are starting with one file per feature. >> >> Also, >> >> * I believe your file is quite large, and reviewing all of those points >> in one sitting in JOSM using the todo list might not be practical. I would >> suggest splitting the final file into more manageable chunks. >> >> * Please make it clear in your instructions that if there is an existing >> well or spring in OSM, that you will preserve it, copy tags from the import >> data as appropriate, and delete the imported point. You should not be >> creating duplicates, nor should you be deleting existing data in favor of >> the imported data. >> >> * Are you doing this all yourself, or will there be people helping you? >> It seems like a lot of data for one person to review/import. If you are >> going to have multiple people, how are you going to keep track of who is >> doing what? The Denver building import was set up using the tasking >> manager, such that when a mapper started mapping a task they automatically >> got both the OSM data and the import data for that location. This does >> require some web accessible place to store the import data. >> >> * The import should not be done under your regular OSM account, you >> should create a separate account for imports (maybe you mentioned this >> already in your proposal and I missed it). >> >> >> >> >> >> Mike >> >> >> >>
_______________________________________________ Imports mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports
