Dear Frederik, Thank you very much for taking the time to review our proposed GNS data import for the Saudi map. Your comments and insights are highly valuable, and we appreciate your guidance.
We'd like to address the specific points you raised: * do not place a source=* tag on the elements - put it on the upload changeset instead >> We'll remove source tags from elements and place them in the upload changeset * do not add GNS:dsg_code, GNS:dsg_name >> We'll remove them. * GNS:id is questionable, it could perhaps be a "ref" or should be omitted altogether. It frequently is a negative number...? >> We'll remove them. * GNS:modify_date should be dropped in my opinion; also, 1451 objects have a pre-2000 date i.e. they are more than 24 years old; >> We understand your point regarding the GNS:modify_date tag. While some >> objects may have pre-2000 dates, they represent established geographical >> features whose names haven't changed. * do not use the tag keys 'مكرر' or 'يستورد' (you have 9960 occurences of each) >> We apologize for including the temporary tags مكرر and يستورد. These were >> internal markers used during data classification and verification and will >> be removed before final upload. * another 9960 objects have a tag called "zz" with a value of "zz", drop these >> These are tags that were supposed to be deleted before uploading (we used >> them to highlighting points differently in the JOSM style) * You have 1090 "wadi" type objects all with the same "note" tag of "It is better to draw the Wadi as way (Note that the node is in mouth of wadi), copy tags from node, and tag it as waterway=river and intermittent=yes clean natural=valley tag" - I would recommend NOT to create these misleading "natural=valley" objects in the first place when you already know that it is wrong! > > We'll upload them without the note and convert them to waterways with > > appropriate tags later * should something that GNS records as a "hill" really be imported into OSM as "natural=peak"? >> We've double-checked that most GNS "hills" are indeed mountain peaks * I found many "interdune through" and "depression" objects that you converted to place=locality and that did not correspond to anything visible on aerial imagery; how were they "verified"? I would suggest to drop all place=locality objects from the import >> We acknowledge your concern about "place=locality" objects. These represent >> unpopulated locations with established names crucial for navigation in the >> Saudi desert. We've meticulously verified their existence through methods >> like [consulting local communities, historical records]. We understand the >> importance of data accuracy and have excluded any entries with questionable >> validity. And these places are very important to us to be uploaded. This is just what I noticed in half an hour of looking at the data set. Based on these many questionable points I would urge you to wait until more people have had a look at the data set. >> I can assure you that all the data that we proposed to upload was reviewed >> and we took this matter for about a year and approved it on a daily basis >> (we review the accuracy of the geographical name and the accuracy of its >> existence, and we also go back to some old text books and verify the >> accuracy of our conclusion, and sometimes we go to people on social >> networking sites who They live somewhere to ask about a specific place) The wiki page is from 2021; how come you are picking this up now? Also, who is "we"? It sounds like you are a group of people or an organisation that is planning this import? >> Most of the work was done by me, Saeed Habishan, and some volunteers who do >> not have a large presence on OSM but are experts in local geographic names >> such as: Saleh Al-Ghafili https://twitter.com/goufily We are all volunteers dedicated to enriching the Saudi OpenStreetMap desert region. And To ensure data integrity, we implemented a rigorous filtering process. This process involved checking for duplicates and meticulously evaluating locations with any uncertainty about their validity. While this resulted in excluding approximately 61% of the initial GNS data points, we are confident that the remaining 39% represents a high-quality selection for import. This curated dataset will significantly enhance the accuracy of the OpenStreetMap desert region, potentially aiding search and rescue efforts and promoting safer navigation. Thank you again for your valuable feedback. We'll keep you updated on our progress and would be happy to answer any further questions you may have. Sincerely, Abdullah ________________________________ From: Frederik Ramm <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, April 29, 2024 1:50 AM To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Imports] GNS Data Import to Saudi map Hi, after a quick review of the data, I have the following comments: * do not place a source=* tag on the elements - put it on the upload changeset instead * do not add GNS:dsg_code, GNS:dsg_name * GNS:id is questionable, it could perhaps be a "ref" or should be omitted altogether. It frequently is a negative number...? * GNS:modify_date should be dropped in my opinion; also, 1451 objects have a pre-2000 date i.e. they are more than 24 years old; * do not use the tag keys 'مكرر' or 'يستورد' (you have 9960 occurences of each) * another 9960 objects have a tag called "zz" with a value of "zz", drop these * You have 1090 "wadi" type objects all with the same "note" tag of "It is better to draw the Wadi as way (Note that the node is in mouth of wadi), copy tags from node, and tag it as waterway=river and intermittent=yes clean natural=valley tag" - I would recommend NOT to create these misleading "natural=valley" objects in the first place when you already know that it is wrong! * should something that GNS records as a "hill" really be imported into OSM as "natural=peak"? * I found many "interdune through" and "depression" objects that you converted to place=locality and that did not correspond to anything visible on aerial imagery; how were they "verified"? I would suggest to drop all place=locality objects from the import This is just what I noticed in half an hour of looking at the data set. Based on these many questionable points I would urge you to wait until more people have had a look at the data set. The wiki page is from 2021; how come you are picking this up now? Also, who is "we"? It sounds like you are a group of people or an organisation that is planning this import? Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail [email protected] ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" _______________________________________________ Imports mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports
_______________________________________________ Imports mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports
