Secondly, is it better to do 4x imports for each feature set; starting at the most high level feature layer?
I mean there are commonly things you just don't expect, so a trial run with large obvious features is probably best; pushing further into detail. Third one; why just features with names? Part of the motivation for mapping smaller dams has been for things like XPlane (realistic terrain); and excluding unnamed features would potentially make the data set less useful than it could be On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 1:58 PM, Daniel O'Connor <[email protected]> wrote: > What's the level of detail like for small bodies of water? > > For example, I've put in some manual effort around small dams in places > like http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=14/-35.0894/138.8376 - i'd be > curious to see a preview of this sort of area with the merged data. > > On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 1:30 PM, Henry Haselgrove <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Hi All, >> >> >> >> The South Australian government provides a dataset called “Waterbodies” >> on the website data.sa.gov.au. >> >> It contains information about approximately 150,000 lakes, reservoirs, >> wetlands, and dams throughout the state (and in some margin around the >> state). The SA government gave explicit permission for data from >> data.sa.gov.au to be used in OSM. >> >> >> >> I have created the following wiki page to describe a plan I have to >> import some of the waterbodies data: >> >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/South_Australian_Waterbodies >> >> >> >> Any feedback you have about the plan would be greatly appreciated! >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> >> >> Henry Haselgrove >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Talk-au mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au >> >> >
_______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
