On 5 Aug 2010, at 14:43 , Alan Mintz wrote:
At 2010-08-05 11:52, Ian Dees wrote:
...
It isn't any different. I had made the (bad) decision at the time to import
over any existing data because in the several hundred places I spot-checked,
NHD was vastly superior in resolution (and probably
Moving away from discussions of specific imports, I'd like to explore
what people think about a few areas of this discussion:
1) When someone says I want to import X, what should our first response be?
2) When someone points out a widespread problem (such as the Salt Lake
City addresses), how do
On 5 August 2010 20:27, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jan 8, 2000 at 3:20 PM, Katie Filbert filbe...@gmail.com wrote:
The difference with NHD is that we are leaving conversion to osm format
for the local mapper / importer. Since OSM US has server space, maybe
that's good use of
On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 9:11 AM, Serge Wroclawski emac...@gmail.com wrote:
Moving away from discussions of specific imports, I'd like to explore
what people think about a few areas of this discussion:
1) When someone says I want to import X, what should our first response
be?
The nature of
On 6 Aug 2010, at 1:45 , Nathan Edgars II wrote:
On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 3:50 AM, Apollinaris Schoell ascho...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 5 Aug 2010, at 14:43 , Alan Mintz wrote:
As I manually survey various features (POIs, some hydro, etc.), I usually
try to merge in the data from existing
Good to see your comments getting through Katie (I was one of the
people who didn't get your emails before).
On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 11:59 AM, Katie Filbert filbe...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 9:11 AM, Serge Wroclawski emac...@gmail.com wrote:
Moving away from discussions of
On Fri, 6 Aug 2010, Serge Wroclawski wrote:
2. I think widespread bot fixes should be encouraged to wait 10
days. It's just too easy to make a large change and too hard to fix
it. I'd also suggest that we (as a community) develop tools to make it
easier to demonstrate what an import or bot
On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 3:13 PM, Kevin Atkinson ke...@atkinson.dhs.org wrote:
On Fri, 6 Aug 2010, Serge Wroclawski wrote:
2. I think widespread bot fixes should be encouraged to wait 10
days. It's just too easy to make a large change and too hard to fix
it. I'd also suggest that we (as a
On Fri, 6 Aug 2010, Katie Filbert wrote:
1) Anyone that wants to run a bot or new tasks for an existing bot
(automated or semi-automated tasks) must submit a request to the bot
approval group (BAG). Others are free to comment on the request, in addition
to BAG.
If I had too go though a formal
On Fri, 6 Aug 2010, Serge Wroclawski wrote:
On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 3:13 PM, Kevin Atkinson ke...@atkinson.dhs.org wrote:
On Fri, 6 Aug 2010, Serge Wroclawski wrote:
2. I think widespread bot fixes should be encouraged to wait 10
days. It's just too easy to make a large change and too hard to
On Fri, 6 Aug 2010, Kevin Atkinson wrote:
On Fri, 6 Aug 2010, Katie Filbert wrote:
1) Anyone that wants to run a bot or new tasks for an existing bot
(automated or semi-automated tasks) must submit a request to the bot
approval group (BAG). Others are free to comment on the request, in
At 2010-08-06 06:11, Serge Wroclawski wrote:
...
1. I think the first reactions to a request to import should be
something that outlines the danger to OSM of importing.
The biggest danger of which, IMO, is duplication of existing data. I
believe many newbies will want to import datasets that
Serge Wroclawski emac...@gmail.com writes:
Moving away from discussions of specific imports, I'd like to explore
what people think about a few areas of this discussion:
1) When someone says I want to import X, what should our first response be?
I think your reaction to point out the danger
As I manually survey various features (POIs, some hydro, etc.), I
usually try to merge in the data from existing imports so as to
maintain the link (e.g. gnis:feature_id) back to the original
database, in case we want to exchange updates with them again.
this is impossible due to the
On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 1:19 PM, Serge Wroclawski emac...@gmail.com wrote:
[ ... ]
What do people think of a something like A friendly guide to bots and
imports?
I like it. Let's start.
Required reading:
http://www.asklater.com/matt/wordpress/2009/09/imports-and-the-community/
Hi,
Richard Weait wrote:
Required reading:
http://www.asklater.com/matt/wordpress/2009/09/imports-and-the-community/
http://www.asklater.com/matt/wordpress/2009/09/imports-and-the-community-ii/
I also like The Pottery Club:
One thing I'm wondering about: how useful is a small piece of a future
larger import? For example, there's the National Hydrography Dataset,
import of which is apparently being coordinated on the wiki. I've
imported individual lakes and swamps from it, as well as all of those
in small areas (such
On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 1:27 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote:
One thing I'm wondering about: how useful is a small piece of a future
larger import? For example, there's the National Hydrography Dataset,
import of which is apparently being coordinated on the wiki. I've
imported
On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 2:38 PM, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote:
I think the NHD import is a good example of a well-intentioned importer
(me) gone wrong. I had initially planned to import the whole darn thing in
one swoop, but various technical and life challenges came up before I could
get
On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 1:47 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 2:38 PM, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote:
I think the NHD import is a good example of a well-intentioned importer
(me) gone wrong. I had initially planned to import the whole darn thing
in
On Sat, Jan 8, 2000 at 3:20 PM, Katie Filbert filbe...@gmail.com wrote:
The difference with NHD is that we are leaving conversion to osm format for
the local mapper / importer. Since OSM US has server space, maybe that's
good use of it to host converted data ready for import.
I like this...
On Sat, Jan 8, 2000 at 4:20 PM, Katie Filbert filbe...@gmail.com wrote:
Bad imports are bad for the osm. High quality data carefully imported is
helpful. If such high quality data is available for us that is as good or
better than what we can do ourselves, then it's fine not to reinvent the
On Thu, Aug 05, 2010 at 01:38:36PM -0500, Ian Dees wrote:
I think the NHD import is a good example of a well-intentioned importer
(me) gone wrong. I had initially planned to import the whole darn thing in
one swoop, but various technical and life challenges came up before I could
get it
Katie,
your computer thinks it is the year 2000. I see you sent that from
your iPhone. Maybe you had your fingers on the wrong spot so it didn't
get a time signal.
Katie Filbert wrote:
Bad imports are bad for the osm. High quality data carefully imported
is helpful.
Not
On Thu, Aug 05, 2010 at 10:38:47PM +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Katie,
your computer thinks it is the year 2000. I see you sent that from
your iPhone. Maybe you had your fingers on the wrong spot so it didn't
get a time signal.
Not only that, all of your messages (katie) are being
At 2010-08-05 11:52, Ian Dees wrote:
...
It isn't any different. I had made the (bad) decision at the time to
import over any existing data because in the several hundred places I
spot-checked, NHD was vastly superior in resolution (and probably quality).
By import over, do you mean to add
On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 4:43 PM, Alan Mintz
alan_mintz+...@earthlink.netalan_mintz%2b...@earthlink.net
wrote:
At 2010-08-05 11:52, Ian Dees wrote:
...
It isn't any different. I had made the (bad) decision at the time to
import over any existing data because in the several hundred places I
I have to say that after importing a large amount of NHD data (most of NC
and MN) that it is of varying quality, as was the preexisting water related
data already on the server. In general, I agree with Ian that it is higher
quality (both resolution and accuracy) than the preexisting data that
On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 6:10 PM, James U jumba...@gmail.com wrote:
I have to say that after importing a large amount of NHD data (most of NC
and MN) that it is of varying quality, as was the preexisting water related
data already on the server. In general, I agree with Ian that it is higher
Some guides aimed at focused scripts which address a particular problem in
a well defined area would be useful, as most of the guide is aimed at
automatic fixup bots and large scale imports. For example a note in big
bold letters that large uploads take a long time will be very helpful.
Hi,
On 5 August 2010 21:46, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
On Sat, Jan 8, 2000 at 4:20 PM, Katie Filbert filbe...@gmail.com wrote:
Leaving imports to local mappers is good. They are best able to assess the
quality of the data for that area an care about quality of their local map
31 matches
Mail list logo
