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 <j...@joshdoe.com> 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 <toby.mur...@gmail.com> 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 <toby.mur...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 4:05 PM, Golf Geek <golfgeek2...@hotmail.com> 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 >> Imports@openstreetmap.org >> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports _______________________________________________ Imports mailing list Imports@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports
