Revert is done, see changeset #10184494: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/10184494
For the two nodes that someone edited I went ahead and made them areas from Bing and added website and other detail I could glean. Golf Geek, if you'd like help I'd be happy to split your original file into state-sized chunks. I'll volunteer to merge all of Virginia's golf courses. Also, I'd be interested to know your method for reducing the ~6000 nodes to ~4000 (i.e. perhaps provide the script you used). -Josh On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 2:45 PM, Josh Doe <[email protected]> wrote: > I just pulled in the changeset, and only three nodes have been changed: > Name corrected: > http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/1556624529/history > > Position moved: > http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/1556638779/history > > And deleted: > http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/1556629698/history > > I'd suggest this be reverted tonight, keeping the two corrected nodes. > Also, when we re-import this (more slowly), I don't think we need any > of the gnis tags except for the ID, which should probably use > gnis:feature_id. > > If I get a chance and no objections, I'll revert this tonight (~8 > hours from now). > -Josh > > On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 1:59 PM, Josh Doe <[email protected]> wrote: >> I've noticed in my area golf course nodes added that already exist: >> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/1556625188 >> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/1556629688 >> and others >> >> I support reverting this changeset ASAP. >> >> Golf Geek, >> Let's instead take the work you've done and split it up into state >> sized chunks (e.g. via Osmosis). Then several contributors including >> yourself can manually merge the nodes a state at a time. Thank you for >> your interest in this, and for coming forward on the mailing list. >> Trust me that this is not the first time this kind of thing has >> happened, but you did the right thing coming here and letting us know. >> >> Regards, >> -Josh >> >> On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 2:03 AM, Toby Murray <[email protected]> wrote: >>> 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 >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Imports mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports _______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
