On Tue, 23 Apr 2019 at 16:59, Peter Barth <osm-p...@won2.de> wrote: > I didn't read the plan btw, but wanted to read the ML if there really > was community acceptance as any note about this was left out in this > thread. A huge thread, all swedish, so no idea if swedish community is > ok or not. Did they accept or decline or abstain?!
Hello Peter, This comment attracted my attention. In my experience it is quite usual that when local issues are discussed in local forums, it is done in the local language, whether English, French or Swedish. I have not often seen a summary written in a foreign language towards the end of the discussion. Perhaps it is common in the German-speaking forums or mailing lists? > The first 16 of those changesets > uploaded nodes, 10k each of them (i.e. total of 160000 nodes). No ways > or relations. Ok, so a huge change, split into changesets leaving > traceability to the mapper instead of the importer. As always, I want > to add. Changeset Nr. 17[2] actually adds something. Of course again > a quite large one but at least achavi[3] could load it. Limitations of API should be dealt with for the convenience of the people doing the mapping, not of the API. OSM tooling for viewing changesets and area history is known to be poor but this cannot be a determining factor for contributing to OSM (otherwise I request that rosemary 0.4.4 or wheelmap changesets with bounding boxes spanning the globe be blocked immediately). Would you rather have contributors figuring out how to deal with API limitations and making pretty changesets, or doing mapping or indeed importing? > Almost only new ways This cannot be surprising in an area where forests are largely unmapped. > and it seems everything is tagged with > landuse=forest, no matter if it's natural scrub or wetland or whatever > else. Seems wrong to me and taginfo[4]. It might be charitable to note here that there is a large discussion about what is supposed to be the meaning of landuse=forest, and of landuse and landcover tags in general, with no OSM-wide consensus that I've seen so far. If there were trees grown in an area, they were cut down for wood, and it's regrowing as scrub, is the land still "being used as a forest"? Is wetland=swamp automatically not a forest? > I opened a small test area in an editor, a small island[5]. It has an > offset to all imageries out there. Ok, imagery can be wrong for sure. > But outlines also don't match. Strange, but ok. A bit more to the east > I noticed the lakeshore: It intersects the forests multiple times. > Strange. A bit to the south, the island Lövholmen intersects the forest > yet again. And so on and so on. Indeed from imagery it looks like the lake, which was previously mapped (seemingly by hand in changeset 29491171), is inaccurate, and the bits of forest that are now mapped at 16/59.0365/16.0570 appear fairly accurate to me comparing to local orthophoto (Lantmäteriet Historic Orthophoto 1975). From the achavi visualizations we can see that the lake outline was largely unchanged. Would you have liked to see the lakes manually fixed while importing forests? > From this quite small random sample I'd argue that this is a very low > quality import. I'm not really astonished about that, but I'm > questioning if it isn't time to increase our quality standards wrt > imports and introduce import permissions as opposed to just ignore > criticism and wait a week or two to import. And who might issue such a permission? The local community? The already overworked DWG? OSMF? Best, Jarek _______________________________________________ Imports mailing list Imports@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports
