Hi Abdullah, I know you are pausing on the wadi portion of the import, but you will likely be interested in this recent proposal being drafted and long discussion about mapping wadis:
- https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal:Natural%3Dwadi - https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/properly-mapping-dry-washes/108437 On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 9:07 AM عبدالله عبدالرحمن < [email protected]> wrote: > Dear Mateusz Konieczny, > > > Thank you for your thorough review of our proposed GNS data import for the > Saudi map. Your insights are invaluable, and we greatly appreciate your > dedication to upholding OpenStreetMap's high data quality standards. > > > We've meticulously reviewed your concerns regarding the "wadi" features > and completely agree that a more precise approach is required. > Consequently, we've made the decision to temporarily exclude these features > from the current import. We plan to address them in a separate future > upload, ensuring proper tagging and representation as waterways. > > > Attached you'll find the revised dataset, reflecting the removal of "wadi" > features and incorporating Frederik's suggestions. We eagerly welcome any > additional feedback you may have. > > > Sincerely, > > Abdullah > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Mateusz Konieczny via Imports <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Monday, April 29, 2024 3:44 PM > *Cc:* [email protected] <[email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: [Imports] GNS Data Import to Saudi map > > Thanks in general! > > "We'll upload them without the note and convert them to waterways with > appropriate tags later" > > No, in such case they must not be imported. > > If data is known to be wrong and requiring manual fixup it must not be > imported. > It can be still used one way or another but should be added only when it > is valid. > > Such plans were presented many times and typically planned cleanup was > never done. > > > 29 Apr 2024, 12:27 by [email protected]: > > > 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 <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 >
_______________________________________________ Imports mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports
