On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 2:49 PM, Andrea Musuruane <musur...@gmail.com>

Hi Andrea,

I understand this is your first import (and I definitely hope it's not your
> last!). It's really difficult to get things right the first time. Imports
> are not easy tasks - there are so much things to pay attention to.
> I find your goal valuable. Having buildings for Sabbioneta (BTW, it's nice
> place I visited some moons ago :-)) in OSM is definitely welcome.

Yes I was joking, really thank you for your time. I hope our work could
help future import processes.

> > The "Schedule" chapter is missing.
> >>
> >
> Fine, but English can be improved:

*The Municipality of Sabbioneta released a written permission in December
> 2017 stating it allows works derived from the "Carta Tecnica Comunale" to
> be distributed under the ODbL. My aim is to upload building data by the end
> of February 2018. *
> > "Import Type" section in "Import Data" chapter is missing. You should
> >> likely say your import is a one-time import, you won't use automated
> >> scripts, all the tags will be entered manually and data will be
> imported in
> >> the OSM database using JOSM.
> >
> >
> >
> > I hope that everything is clearer now
> >
> >
> Yes, much better, thanks.
> English can be improved:
> *This is a one-time import. The dataset will be uploaded as a single
> changeset without using an automated script. All the tags will be entered
> manually and the dataset will be uploaded using JOSM.*

Done thank you

> You should upload the original dataset.
> >
> >
> >
> > I can't. the Municipality license it's just to extract the data and share
> > throught Osm.
> >
> >
> I think it's fine but, if possible, I'd like to have a more authoritative
> (i.e. legal) opinion about this: we can't see the source data set but we're
> allowed to derive works from it.

> "Data license" should link to a text copy of the ODbL.
> >> "Type of license" should be "ODbL".
> >
> >
> >
> > Done (I hope)
> >
> >
> This is strictly linked with the previous point.
> *Data license:* *proprietary* (owned by the Municipality of Sabbioneta)
> [...]
> *ODbL Compliance verified:* Municipality of Sabbioneta has agreed to
> license *derived* data under the ODbL
> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ODbL>.

I am waiting clarification but I belive this doesn't stop the import (I

> The data still have some issue:
> >> - adjacent buildings that are not connected
> >> - a building has self-intersecting ways
> >
> >
> > Fix it, sorry Josm marked as Advertising and I ignored them.
> >
> >
> JOSM validator still shows two warnings you must address.

Yes now

> > - churches are tagged with "denominati" (it should be denomination)
> >
> >
> > Yes sorry was a mistake depending to the shp field name limitation...
> >
> >
> Now the OSM file has both the "denominati"  and " "denomination" tags :-(

Yes sorry...  😅

> > - bell towers are tagged with man_made=campanile (shouldn't it be
> >> man_made=tower + tower:type=bell_tower?) and without the building tag.
> See
> >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:tower:type%3Dbell_tower
> >
> >
> > I found it in the wiki https://wiki.openstreetmap.org
> > /wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dcampanile
> >
> >
> This has been discussed in the past in the talk-it ML.
> The tag man_made=campanile is documented in the wiki but is used only 791
> times. Moreover the picture refers to the Swedish Klockstapel which is
> completely different from a "campanile". The normal tagging for a campanile
> is man_made=tower + tower:type= bell_tower (used 10595 times). Even the
> man_made=campanile wiki page suggest to use this tagging.

Ok, at the beginning when I found "Campanile" I said "this is
perfect!!" and I haven't search further...

> some buildings are split in different parts (still tagged as building=*)
> >> and you assign different heights to them. I'm not an expert about this
> but
> >> it seems this is not the right procedure. Please read
> >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:height#Height_of_buildings and
> >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Simple_3D_buildings
> >
> >
> > Was identified all single buildings that have different height to add in
> a
> > future mapping phase other tag to improve the detail map (level, color,
> > roof_,shape, etc.). That was made with a manually split procedure but I
> > have splited only the building (not the building part).
> >
> >
> Your tagging is wrong. Look at the following example.
> [image: Inline image 1]
> This is a house. It is a single building. This also means you should have
> only one building tag on the building outline.
> But you made two buildings (i.e. with two building tags): one for the lower
> part (a multi polygon) and one for the higher part (a closed way). But
> different parts must be tagged with building:part as explained on
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Simple_3D_buildings

Yes now I have understud and you are absolutely right, I fixed that and the
other similar cases (almost all the multipolygon).

> I have some troubles with your conflation phase which is summarized as
> >> "Merge the tag and the history of the existing features through the JOSM
> >> Utilsplugin2 plugin;".  It's not clear, at least to me, how
> Utilsplugin2 is
> >> helpful in this context. I suppose (because you didn't write it) you'll
> use
> >> the "Copy tags from previous selection (Shift+R)" feature.
> >
> >
> >
> > That was my original plan
> >
> >
> >
> >> BTW, isn't it simpler and less error prone to use the "More Tools ->
> >> Replace geometry" tool?
> >
> >
> >
> > That was a suggestion from the talk-it, but I will return to my original
> > plan.
> >
> >
> Your plan now is "Merge the tags from the existing features using the "Copy
> selected key(s)/Value(s)" and the "Past tag" tools;"
> Please use the "More Tools -> Replace geometry" tool. You have to select
> the new feature (e.g. the one derived from the CTC) and the current
> feature. The tool will preserve the feature history (which is really
> recommanded), it will merge the tags (prompting you to resolve possible
> conflicts) and it will use the new geometry - all in one shot.

Much better thanks.

> QA phase is still missing. Do you plan to use some kind of validator
> >> (e.g.. JOSM validator)? When? Do you plan to do some kind of post import
> >> verification? How?
> >
> >
> >
> > QA it's made. As I wrote above after the import I will work a lot on the
> > Sabbioneta area so I will verification and monitoring all the changeset
> and
> > I will any potential mistakes.
> >
> >
> Right now the plan is "The Topology Checker QGIS Plugin and the Josm
> validator to prevent most problems before uploading the data."
> Please add something about what you will do *after* the import. For
> example, you can use again the JOSM validator (on the whole OSM data and
> not only on the buildings) and/or use Osmose.


BTW, how will you merge POI on nodes and POI on buildings? For example the
> Teatro Olimpico and the townhall?

"Teatro Olimpico" is wrong both in the denomination and in the
localization. In order to not delete them I could keep both , but it could
be redundant .

If you struggle to follow this thread in English, we can continue in
> Italian on the talk-it mailing list.

No problem for the english but If we swith only to the talk-it how does the
community could authorize the import?  How does this work?

Thanks again Andrea

Talk-it mailing list

Rispondere a