[Imports] Marin County data license
Hi, The County of Marin in California has buildings and addresses available to download from their website. The data appears to be high quality and covers the whole county. It would be great to be able to conflate the two files, merging the points and areas that have a direct one-to-one relationship. The website doesn't have anything specific about the license. It just has vague disclaimer info - county cannot be held liable ...blah blah blah. I contacted them to ask if the data was public domain and if it could be used in OSM. This is their response: You may download public domain data from the MarinMap GIS data download site. You do not need a license to use public domain data. You may acknowledge “MarinMap” as the original source, but you MUST state that MarinMap has no responsibility or warranty regarding data after they have entered the public domain. You may use the legalese from the disclaimer web page to facilitate writing a disclaimer. URL of the disclaimer page: http://www.marinmap.org/dnn/Pages/LegalNoticeDisclaimer.aspx; http://www.marinmap.org/dnn/Pages/LegalNoticeDisclaimer.aspx Since the data is public domain, is there any way to accommodate their request to include the disclaimer? There have been other imports that have had this requirement I think and included it on the wiki or someplace similar. Can it be included on the changeset tag somewhere? Anyone had any experience with this type of data? Any ideas on how to make it work? Thanks, Nathan Mixter ___ Imports mailing list Imports@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports
Re: [Imports] Merced buildings and addresses import
Hi, I have already conflated the new data with the existing pois and buildings, keeping tags that were already added like the gnis tags on churches and keeping existing buildings rather than the new ones. I still need to manually check some of the other existing pois to make sure there are no dups with the ones being imported. Where I couldn't verify the existing poi location of the building already in the database, I added the fixme tags so I can survey it later on and see if it can be found or deleted if it is not there any more. The n tag was just a mistake. It looks like it should be name instead. I will fix these tags. Thanks, On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 7:26 PM, Jason Remillard remillard.ja...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Nathan, I loaded the data in JOSM. It has some weird tags for an import. Fixme, n, fixme, gnis:* , It looks like this data has been merged with the existing OSM data, otherwise why have gnis tags? Some of the buildings that are in OSM overlap with the data. It is all kind of confusing Jason On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 2:13 AM, Nathan Mixter nmix...@gmail.com wrote: Merced County Association of Governments has building footprints, addresses and other digital files that can be imported into OSM. GIS Analyst Natalia Austin was very helpful in quickly answering questions and confirmed that the files are public domain and can be freely used. The county has both addresses and building footprint files available. They may update the data in the future, but the county only does it as it has time and doesn't have a specific time schedule, so this will probably be a one-time import, although it may be worth checking back in the next couple years to see if they have made any major updates in either of the files. The import will include information merged and conflated into one file. I have downloaded with Turbo API the few buildings already in the county and have verified that none overlap with existing buildings. I left the existing buildings in place as much as possible and merged any existing address nodes or pois manually with the new buildings. Unfortunately not every building in the county was digitalized, but most address points were. Where there was a direct one-to-one relation, I merged the address point with the building outline. When more than one point occupy a building, the nodes were kept separate from the building outline. I added 100s of buildings manually from imagery so blocks would have the missing outlines rather than just the address node. The original shapefiles included the name and type of business. The extra category allowed them to be matched to their corresponding OSM tags. Both name and OSM category have been included when possible, and the original tags were deleted. The shapefile created unnecessary relations with several of the buildings near each other. These have been manually removed as much as possible, leaving just the tags. I have gone through and tried to make sure the addresses that are not conflated with the buildings are as close to the building as possible and there are no overlapping address points or extra floating address points that don't correspond to anything. I expanded the street abbreviations and converted to proper case items that were in all caps. The JOSM file is available for review at https://www.dropbox.com/s/byclptdmlevy1p8/Merced%20buildings%20and%20addresses.osm?dl=0 . See more on the import wiki page at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Catalogue/Merced_County_Buildings . Please let me know with any thoughts, questions or concerns. Thanks, Nathan ___ Imports mailing list Imports@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports ___ Imports mailing list Imports@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports
[Imports] Merced buildings and addresses import
Merced County Association of Governments has building footprints, addresses and other digital files that can be imported into OSM. GIS Analyst Natalia Austin was very helpful in quickly answering questions and confirmed that the files are public domain and can be freely used. The county has both addresses and building footprint files available. They may update the data in the future, but the county only does it as it has time and doesn't have a specific time schedule, so this will probably be a one-time import, although it may be worth checking back in the next couple years to see if they have made any major updates in either of the files. The import will include information merged and conflated into one file. I have downloaded with Turbo API the few buildings already in the county and have verified that none overlap with existing buildings. I left the existing buildings in place as much as possible and merged any existing address nodes or pois manually with the new buildings. Unfortunately not every building in the county was digitalized, but most address points were. Where there was a direct one-to-one relation, I merged the address point with the building outline. When more than one point occupy a building, the nodes were kept separate from the building outline. I added 100s of buildings manually from imagery so blocks would have the missing outlines rather than just the address node. The original shapefiles included the name and type of business. The extra category allowed them to be matched to their corresponding OSM tags. Both name and OSM category have been included when possible, and the original tags were deleted. The shapefile created unnecessary relations with several of the buildings near each other. These have been manually removed as much as possible, leaving just the tags. I have gone through and tried to make sure the addresses that are not conflated with the buildings are as close to the building as possible and there are no overlapping address points or extra floating address points that don't correspond to anything. I expanded the street abbreviations and converted to proper case items that were in all caps. The JOSM file is available for review at https://www.dropbox.com/s/byclptdmlevy1p8/Merced%20buildings%20and%20addresses.osm?dl=0. See more on the import wiki page at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Catalogue/Merced_County_Buildings . Please let me know with any thoughts, questions or concerns. Thanks, Nathan ___ Imports mailing list Imports@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports
[Imports] (no subject)
Dont waste your life!.. http://xp2600amd.free.fr/friends_links.php?akeSID=39ad7 ___ Imports mailing list Imports@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports
[Imports] Kern County progress
I have begun cleaning up the area around Kern County, California. It is starting to not only look better but be less cluttered. I originally imported landuse data from both Kern County and the City of Bakersfield. Some areas from these two agencies overlapped around Bakersfield, and I have been going through and trying to remove these. The city data were quite good and included landuse areas, buildings, parks and even individual trees within the city. The county data tended to be generic in several places. It also was slightly misaligned in spots particularly in the rural areas, possibly due to the projection it was created with by the county. I have been going through and systematically deleting the redundant areas and breaking down the over used landuse=farm and landuse=residential tags into more specific areas. And in the process, I have been covering some of the ugly white space that has remained empty. A lot of the areas are now natural=heath. There is not really any good way to differentiate between meadow and heath areas. Still seems like they can be used interchangeably sometimes. I've been trying to use meadow for an area that can be used for grazing. I just started using the heath tag for open areas generally on areas east of Highway 5. It's not a perfect option but at least it kind of matches the work others have done around Las Vegas and in the desert. I've been trying to integrate the existing Kern County data with the FMMP farm data, which I have imported for other counties around the state as well. As part of the cleanup, I am adding some new buildings in Bakersfield from city data. I am only adding new building that have been added since the original import and verifying that they don't exist to avoid dups. Probably less than 1,000 total new buildings. Originally, I included bak:fac_type1, bak:fac_type2 and bak:fac_type3 tags on some buildings to correspond to tags in the data. These are not needed and can be removed en mass by a script in the future. I am leaving those tags out and incorporating them into the building= tag (ie building=residential, building=commercial) for new buildings.I also created a long overdue Kern County page on the wiki to keep track of the changes (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Kern_County,_California). Thanks to everyone who has contacted me to help out with the cleanup and offered advise. If anyone is interested in helping or has any suggestions, feel free to jump in or let me know.Nathan, ___ Imports mailing list Imports@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports
Re: [Imports] (no subject)
Im so happy! My new site is wonderful! I hope youll like it too.. http://www.biz-analyst.com/friends_links.php?omgoogleId=28bu7 ___ Imports mailing list Imports@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports
[Imports] California farm data
The California State Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) has given OpenStreetMap permission to use their farm data under a public domain license. They just request attribution. To comment about the proposal, go to http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/California_Farms. We should import the new 2010 data when it comes out hopefully by the end of the year. Currently just the 2008 data is available. The data can be posted and then people who are familiar with the areas can download them, clean them up in JOSM and then upload. They should compare the FMMP data with the existing data and then replace the old farm data with new farm data when possible. We should use this data set for importing just the farmland. The other land areas, urban lands and grazing areas could come in handy when needing to add a zone to a city that hasn't been zoned but in general shouldn't be used. The water layer should also be avoided because the NHD import is better. This data is included in the California Land Cover import, but this data is more accurate and should be done first before that import is attempted. Issues Updating- The data is updated every two years. FMMP is looking for a way to be able to update the data when it is changed and also to see what changes have been made. They would also like to be able to contribute back to OSM and in turn be able to reference the data from OSM when it changes. There currently aren't any good methods to be able to sync the data. Alignment- FMMP data is slightly misaligned and appears to be off when viewed with aerial photos or OSM data. FMMP is saved in NAD27 and would need to be converted to WGS84. While the data is generally good, it's almost as if the whole layer needs to be shifted slightly to make it align. It could simply be a matter of the projection conversion. Maybe there is another way to automatically convert it. Crossing layers - Some layers may cut across a field that looks like it should all be one area. FMMP classifies farm data as prime farmland, farmland of statewide importance, farmland of local importance or unique farmland. Lack of details - OSM is detailed when it comes to farms. There are vineyards, orchards and farmland among some of the variations in farms. FMMP makes no distinction between what the land is used for, with the exception of grazing, which isn't useful in OSM because it is too general. Existing data- Some counties such as Fresno, Kern and Santa Cruz already have farm data imported on the parcel level. If the FMMP data was added here, it would have to be combined with existing data. ___ Imports mailing list Imports@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports
Re: [Imports] Natural Earth datasets
If you just want water bodies and rivers, check out the National Hydrography import. ___ Imports mailing list Imports@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports
