More problems I found by just downloading all leisure=golf_course objects and randomly browsing around some of Kansas/Nebraska with Bing imagery.
Can't idenfity on aerial. I could just be missing it. Or GNIS position might be off by a lot. Some are in the middle of a town without so much as a full block of grass anywhere near them. Or it may have been closed but is still in GNIS. It is unlikely that it is a new golf course. Bing imagery seems to be pretty recent (2010) in most areas I looked at. http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/1556624422 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/1556638495 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/1556635779 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/1556635714 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/1556624015 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/1556625367 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/1556625957 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/1556631507 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/1556638863 Two golf courses in close proximity that are probably the same course, maybe known by two different names: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/1556638410 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/1556627728 and http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/1556624801 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/1556639241 Were these not in GNIS or were they excluded because of an existing way? Could have maybe used GNIS data to add a name to the existing way: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/46342164 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/43332671 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/42280171 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/98180901 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/129025203 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/126614718 Toby On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 11:27 PM, Toby Murray <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 4:05 PM, Golf Geek <[email protected]> wrote: >> After reviewing the Import/Guidelines wiki, I realize I should have posted >> here first, but here's a quick "after action report" on a recent import. >> Better late than never. :) > > Why didn't you read this before the import? This should not be viewed > as optional. > >> I noticed that although USGS GNIS data had been imported into OSM in the >> past, the US golf course locations provided as GNIS Locales had not been >> included. >> >> So, I retrieved GNIS Locales with "Golf" in the name from >> http://geonames.usgs.gov/ and saved them as OSM nodes, using these tags: >> >> gnis:Class = Locale >> gnis:County = [various] >> gnis:ST_alpha = [various] >> gnis:id = [various] >> leisure = golf_course >> name = [various] >> source = USGS GNIS >> >> From the list of ~6000 nodes, I removed any that overlapped with existing >> OSM golf_course nodes or ways. > > You apparently failed to take into account how terrible GNIS spatial > accuracy can actually be: > Your node: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/1556636801 > Existing way: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/70764331 > > Yes, that over a mile off. This is why the import guidelines say to > discuss it with the community FIRST. There is much collected knowledge > about imports in the community which can prevent such common mistakes. > >> The remaining 4421 nodes were then added as Changeset 10168800. >> >> The data license is OK (USGS GNIS has been used before), and the new nodes >> should not screw up existing data (although I am sure they are not perfect), >> so hopefully this import will be a good starting point for further manual >> edits. > > With nodes that are off by a mile, I am doubtful of this claim. So > far, I have only looked at that one node so far. Others, please check > more in your area. If mine is an outlier then I'll just fix it. If > there are many more that are as bad as this one, I would propose > reverting this import, especially since import guidelines were not > followed. > > Toby _______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
