This is now complete for the area west of Portland Oregon as a test. http://www.paulnorman.ca/blog/?attachment_id=96 shows the difference.
About 99.8% of the data was untouched since it was imported. I checked the other dozen or so ways by hand. > -----Original Message----- > From: John Chambers [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2011 3:48 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Proposed cleanup: NHD "rivers" > > I know of least one 46006 that I would consider a river (Tussahaw > creek) , but doesn't have river in the name, but as bad as other NHD > data I've seen is, this little problem will be small. > > upstream > > On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 4:50 PM, Paul Norman <[email protected]> wrote: > > If there are no objections to the retagging part I'll proceed with > > retagging FCodes 46003 and 46006 as documented on > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Pnorman/NHDCleanup > > > > I will not be joining waterways at this time. > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Paul Norman [mailto:[email protected]] > >> Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2011 6:52 PM > >> To: 'Richard Welty'; [email protected] > >> Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Proposed cleanup: NHD "rivers" > >> > >> This is the view I subscribe to too. An example of two ways I would > >> want to join would be > >> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/68711710 and > >> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/68710322 > >> These differ only in nhd:com_id and they're both really short ways. > >> > >> In any case, I'd like to make it clear that there are two separate > >> parts. > >> The retagging of the ways, and the joining of them. The first one is > >> a serious issue, visible out to z8 in the rendering and hopefully > >> uncontroversial to change. The second one is a less important issue > >> that it seems more debate is required on. > >> > >> For the retagging, I've done up a table at > >> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Pnorman/NHDCleanup which > >> explains the changes I'm proposing. I should of thought of a table > >> earlier > >> > >> Also, I need to empathize that any data edited by users since the > >> imports won't be touched without manual review. > >> > >> > -----Original Message----- > >> > From: Richard Welty [mailto:[email protected]] > >> > Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2011 5:38 PM > >> > To: [email protected] > >> > Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Proposed cleanup: NHD "rivers" > >> > > >> > On 3/20/11 8:16 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: > >> > > On 3/20/2011 8:13 PM, Richard Welty wrote: > >> > >> d suggest using relations to group ways that are parts of named > >> > >> rivers rather than trying to combine the ways. > >> > > > >> > > If the only difference between the ways is that NHD assigns a > >> > > different ID number to them, not combining them seems silly. > >> > if the ids are consistent from one release to the next and there is > >> > any notion of doing an update later, then combining them destroys > >> > useful information. > >> > > >> > richard > >> > > >> > > >> > _______________________________________________ > >> > Talk-us mailing list > >> > [email protected] > >> > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Talk-us mailing list > >> [email protected] > >> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Talk-us mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us > > > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-us mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us _______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
