Re: [Talk-us] (Second attempt) Potential data source: Adirondack Park Freshwater Wetlands
Elliott Plack writes: I would argue that importing land-use that is difficult or tedious to trace...encourage(s) local mapping... I agree. OSM user nmixter and I contributed to a comprehensive landuse import in Santa Cruz County California starting in 2009. You can read the details at our County's wiki page, but over three versions and five+ years, this is now reasonably up-to-date with two-year-old (the latest) data. While painstaking manual updating of over 3000 (multi)polygons was required, we (largely I) did it, because we should have. Santa Cruz even won a Gold Star Award from BestOfOSM.org, one of only a handful of North American locations to receive this accolade. From the site: "...nearly perfect landuse!" And as newer landuse data become available, published by our County GIS Department, we (I, likely) will update/import these to version 4. That's what it takes, so that's what we do. We have many active local contributors, including students from our local University of California campus via numerous (Computer Science, Environmental Studies...) classes, as well as the Transportation Department adopting OSM for the campus' official basemap at http://maps.ucsc.edu. The map is plastic enough to accommodate all of these uses, AND be a useful academic tool at the same time. Just have respect for the data, follow good, simple rules and have fun! 1. It shows others that an area of the map has received some attention. Yes, it certainly does! However, a landuse import must be done well, with an eye towards quality, accuracy and even beauty, rather than simply be a bad excuse for "spilling large buckets of paint" (farmland, meadow, residential...) all over the map with poorly-chosen, giant landuse= (multi)polygons. Please be careful not to do this; a landuse import is a balancing act. For example, we know that our landuse import, which might result in what some think of a "zoning map" (it is much more than that) is really a first draft for much more comprehensive OSM data input in the future. It ENCOURAGES these additional data entries by taking the map from "empty" to "rough (but accurate) sketch" to "now that others have gotten you started, please draw as much beautiful detail as you are able to." 2. It produces "gaps," i.e. places where there are no wetlands or water thus leaving a gray "hole" on the map, thus a mapper might look there to add something, such as a camp site or some unknown settlement. In our County, this draws special attention to parks that haven't been named properly, so-called "special_use" parcels (some turn out to be landuse=industrial like a water tower or sewage treatment), sharpening up differences between residential farmland (so-called "live-on" family farms) vs. more commercial farmland like orchards, vineyards and row crops and it allows boundaries (e.g. of public lands) to be improved, TIGER roads to be called attention to with obvious errors so they can be improved, and more. 3. It exposes inaccurate TIGER roads and tracks, as these typically are on embankments through wetlands. As I just said. Sometimes TIGER roads and tracks follow a property boundary, and if a landuse import is accurate, it can be used to supercede the TIGER road or track, allowing obvious improvement. Importing landuse adds visual beauty to the map in places where it would take hordes of volunteers to trace wetlands, and experts to determine the wetland classification. I think this is a good idea. And not just in wetlands, though I do agree. In our world (2/3 of our County is wooded) it was found that a tag of natural=wood (where landuse=forest, or an active timberland) was appropriate for many parcels (such as special_use) that otherwise wouldn't render. When superimposed with the simple task of tracing existing landuse=meadow polygons over these woods, forests and parks, the effect is both accurate and visually quite pleasing. (See, for example, the rather pretty -- and accurate -- contrasts between wooded/forested areas and farms, parks and meadows at http://www.osm.org/#map=16/36.9712/-122.0778). I've fiddled around with NWI data and OSM and usually the result is great. While I'd concede that landuses do change, so to do other features that are imported often (buildings and such). A map is always a snapshot in time, and for the most part land use within a protected area is not subject to much in the way of change. Likewise. We (OSM volunteers) don't often talk about the importance of KEEPING UP the map after an import, but doing so is a seriously crucial component. Thank you, Elliott, for calling this to our attention. Some updates need relatively frequent updating, some almost none at all. SteveA California ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] (Second attempt) Potential data source: Adirondack Park Freshwater Wetlands
Oops: Just realized I originally sent this reply privately: meant to send to the list. On 02/27/2016 05:18 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote: An import is great if it enables a community to go further, or forms the basis of solid work in the future. An import is great if it is one ingredient that makes OSM the best map of the region. But it sounds to me as if your proposed import is hardly more than a small time saver for people who want to make maps of the Adirondack - they *could* go to the original source at any time, and the likelihood of OSM hydrography being *better* than the official data is very low. In my view, a good import is a catalyst for future OSM data improvement. But you seem to say quite clearly that such is unlikely to happen with the data you are planning to import. Your main point is that it'll look better on the map, which for me isn't good enough. Can you point to areas where your import would encourage mappers, including yourself, to add more knowledge and surveyed data to OSM? My personal interest is mostly from the standpoint of improving OSM as a resource for hikers - and recruiting citizen mappers to the task. Available databases of hiking trail alignments are pretty poor. The USGS maps, once stellar, have not been updated since the first Bush administration, and keeping them up to date is no longer in the USGS's charter. They have neither the mission nor the funding to map hiking trails, shelters, campsites, privies, viewpoints, and similar amenities. Mapping them falls on the shoulders of private companies such as National Geographic, and they are happy to sell us maps - even ones in electronic format if we are extremely fortunate - of obsolete data of the most popular areas. The less popular areas are entirely neglected. If trail data are to be collected, it will have to be citizen mappers that do it, and OSM is an obvious repository for it. And none of that data is what I propose to import. Why, then, should I import what I don't plan to improve substantially? When I've tried to recruit my contacts in the hiking community to mapping for OSM, when they see the state of the tiles at openstreetmap.org, they are put off immediately. "Why should I bother?" they say, "there's nothing there!" Particularly before the import of lakes and ponds was done - an import to which your argument equally applies - this entire area simply appeared entirely featureless, with no hope of using OSM to produce a map that could be helpful for anyone. When, on the other hand, I show them https://kbk.is-a-geek.net/catskills/test3.html?la=44.1232&lo=-73.9804&z=15 , they see a map that's already useful for navigating the region, although deeply flawed in many ways. I can point out that trails shown in magenta with their names in UPPER CASE are from a State data set that is digitized at an inappropriately large scale (and for that reason alone, even before license concerns, I wouldn't propose importing it). I can point out that a good many of the trail shelters, privies, parking areas, register kiosks, viewpoints and similar amenities are missing. I can tell hikers that they can improve OSM by capturing that information. I can point out that if enough of us do it as a community, we'll have up-to-date maps that we can maintain as a community. The approach has worked for me. For instance, I was able to persuade a contact who was hiking the route shown with the overlay in https://kbk.is-a-geek.net/catskills/test3.html?la=44.1232&lo=-73.9804&z=15 to capture GPS data and contribute it. (The uploads show my ID because I handled conflating it, simplifying the tracks, vetting alignment against orthophotos, and similar administrative tasks.) OSM is really the only place where the data about trails and associated amenities can be assembled properly, as far as I can tell. The government agencies in the US have not had the funding or authority to collate those data in over twenty years. Web sites like alltrails.com are great for sharing your experience with a single route, but don't really make any effort at all to assemble a map. And the companies like National Geographic and DeLorme are more than happy to sell our own data back to us at a premium price, burden it with usage restrictions, and make it available in formats that we cannot annotate and improve. I don't have a good way to address your argument that data whose authoritiative source is not OSM should not be imported into OSM - and frankly, I mostly agree with it. I tend to believe that the underlying problem is not what we choose to import or not to import, but what we show to newcomers. I believe that the maps we present to the public would be improved if they included (at least optionally) layers derived from government data sources that we taxpayers have the right to use. You can see in the maps that I've presented that I'm also using (and do NOT propose to import) National Land Cover Database, Na
Re: [Talk-us] (Second attempt) Potential data source: Adirondack Park Freshwater Wetlands
I would argue that importing land-use that is difficult or tedious to trace would encourage local mapping for the following three reasons: 1. It shows others that an area of the map has received some attention. 2. It produces "gaps," i.e. places where there are no wetlands or water thus leaving a gray "hole" on the map, thus a mapper might look there to add something, such as a camp site or some unknown settlement. 3. It exposes inaccurate TIGER roads and tracks, as these typically are on embankments through wetlands. Importing landuse adds visual beauty to the map in places where it would take hordes of volunteers to trace wetlands, and experts to determine the wetland classification. I think this is a good idea. I've fiddled around with NWI data and OSM and usually the result is great. While I'd concede that landuses do change, so to do other features that are imported often (buildings and such). A map is always a snapshot in time, and for the most part land use within a protected area is not subject to much in the way of change. I too enjoy mapping things related to wilderness areas. I've done a lot of work around my area mapping trails, park boundaries, and hydrology. I think it makes for beautiful and useful maps. Examples: Patapsco Valley Stake Park, Maryland: http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/39.23160/-76.73002 Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge: http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=13/38.3810/-76.0343 Martin National Wildlife Refuge: http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=14/38.0001/-76.0247 Best, Elliott On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 5:19 PM Frederik Ramm wrote: > Kenny, > > On 02/27/2016 06:10 AM, Kevin Kenny wrote: > > Given the > > difficulties inherent in getting changes made by local mappers working > > independently (the data are a bit difficult to verify in the field), > > it's arguable that we should always use third-party sources to make > > our maps and have it be Someone Else's Problem. That said, we > > unquestionably do have hydrography in OSM, and it doesn't in fact > > require a lot of updating - these natural features are quite stable, > > particularly in a remote area such as I'm considering here. > > Is there not the danger though of the data rotting away in OSM, > precisely for the reasons you outline - difficult to map in the first > place, Adirondack being huge, and all this being a too big project for > one or even a handful persons? > > IMHO you'd be scratching an itch for now and making it easier for people > to make maps with OSM, but a few years down the line, people will again > have to turn to the (regularly updated, presumably?) government data and > say, just like you said, that OSM is "among the poorest of what I have > available"? > > An import is great if it enables a community to go further, or forms the > basis of solid work in the future. An import is great if it is one > ingredient that makes OSM the best map of the region. But it sounds to > me as if your proposed import is hardly more than a small time saver for > people who want to make maps of the Adirondack - they *could* go to the > original source at any time, and the likelihood of OSM hydrography being > *better* than the official data is very low. > > In my view, a good import is a catalyst for future OSM data improvement. > But you seem to say quite clearly that such is unlikely to happen with > the data you are planning to import. Your main point is that it'll look > better on the map, which for me isn't good enough. > > Can you point to areas where your import would encourage mappers, > including yourself, to add more knowledge and surveyed data to OSM? > > Bye > Frederik > > -- > Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" > > ___ > Talk-us mailing list > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us > -- Elliott Plack http://elliottplack.me ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] (Second attempt) Potential data source: Adirondack Park Freshwater Wetlands
Kenny, On 02/27/2016 06:10 AM, Kevin Kenny wrote: > Given the > difficulties inherent in getting changes made by local mappers working > independently (the data are a bit difficult to verify in the field), > it's arguable that we should always use third-party sources to make > our maps and have it be Someone Else's Problem. That said, we > unquestionably do have hydrography in OSM, and it doesn't in fact > require a lot of updating - these natural features are quite stable, > particularly in a remote area such as I'm considering here. Is there not the danger though of the data rotting away in OSM, precisely for the reasons you outline - difficult to map in the first place, Adirondack being huge, and all this being a too big project for one or even a handful persons? IMHO you'd be scratching an itch for now and making it easier for people to make maps with OSM, but a few years down the line, people will again have to turn to the (regularly updated, presumably?) government data and say, just like you said, that OSM is "among the poorest of what I have available"? An import is great if it enables a community to go further, or forms the basis of solid work in the future. An import is great if it is one ingredient that makes OSM the best map of the region. But it sounds to me as if your proposed import is hardly more than a small time saver for people who want to make maps of the Adirondack - they *could* go to the original source at any time, and the likelihood of OSM hydrography being *better* than the official data is very low. In my view, a good import is a catalyst for future OSM data improvement. But you seem to say quite clearly that such is unlikely to happen with the data you are planning to import. Your main point is that it'll look better on the map, which for me isn't good enough. Can you point to areas where your import would encourage mappers, including yourself, to add more knowledge and surveyed data to OSM? Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[Talk-us] (Second attempt) Potential data source: Adirondack Park Freshwater Wetlands
My apologies if this message turns out to be a duplicate. I mistakenly sent it from a mailbox that isn't subscribed to the lists. Potential data source: Adirondack Park Freshwater Wetlands This message is a 'trial balloon' for a potential import of (a subset of) the data in the series of data sets: "Adirondack Park Freshwater Wetlands," found at http://apa.ny.gov/gis/shared/htmlpages/data.html#wetl This data set, in addition to indicating marshes, bogs and fens, has extensive information about open water, with detailed information about lakes and ponds, permanent, intermittent and ephemeral streams, falls and rapids. In the area of coverage (the Adirondack Park of New York State), it is considerably more comprehensive and detailed than, say, the National Hydrographic Database. My experience, from at least a few hundred miles of hiking and mapping in the area in question, is that it is quite close to what one finds with boots, literally, on the ground - or, more likely, half-sunk in beaver swamp. I'm aware of the controversial nature of imports, and I'm suggesting this with some trepidation. Please try to be gentle when you flame me. I'm willing to take 'absolutely not!' for an answer. To give a rough visual impression of the extent of the coverage difference that could be achieved, compare what is OpenStreetMap for a typical spot today: http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=14/43.4894/-74.5106&layers=C with a hiking map that I have rendered from OSM and other layers https://kbk.is-a-geek.net/catskills/test3.html?la=43.4895&lo=-74.5104&z=14 (Note that some of the layers I use cannot be shared - or cannot be shared yet - under ODBL. The hydrography here, however, is all derived from either NHD or the Adirondack Park Agency data set. The use of the two data sets is only part of what gives certain of the shorelines a 'cubist' look. More significant is that the APA data set gives typical seasonal high and low water levels, plus extreme inundation limits if known. This causes a great many watercourses to have two rendered shorelines, plus perhaps a dashed surround showing the flood stage. I think that the map at kbk.is-a-geek.net shows how much this import might help avoid having the Adirondack Park simply be a blank green area on a regional map. Now, let me explain how far I am along with following the import guidelines. (The answer is: not very far yet: it's important to reach out to the community early.) I. PREREQUISITES 1. Familiarity with the basics of OpenStreetMap: I've been mapping off and on for several years, with my chief interest being sharing data about hiking trails, parks, nature preserves, and associated amenities. I believe that I at least know my way around. My biggest single project was getting the complete centerline of the Northville-Placid Trail entered and organized into a route relation http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4286650 . This task involved conflating several other attempts to enter (or import, badly, from TIGER) portions of the trail, together with walking all 138 miles (222 km) with a GPS unit to get the tracks that were missing. I've also done the boundaries, trail systems and watercourses of a number of my local nature preserves and forest tracks, such as http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/190452078, http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/339443446, http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/345643852, http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/270499380, http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4836454 and http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/147772635 . I've learnt in the course of this some of the basics of conflating data and of managing things like multipolygon and multilinestring relations. The map at kbk.is-a-geek.net is also largely my doing. I started from Lars Ahlzen's 'TopOSM,' but I've taken it in a very different direction and added a couple of dozen layers that he didn't need to work with for his project. I think that it demonstrates at least basic competency in Osmosis, Mapnik and PostGIS. 2. Being aware of what can go wrong with imports: I'm acutely aware of it! I deal with TIGER's hallucinations all the time and I intend to go to any length to avoid a mess like that. 3. Identiy data I'd like to import: The eighteen files enumerated in the table athttp://apa.ny.gov/gis/shared/htmlpages/data.html#wetl II. COMMUNITY BUY-IN 1. Contact the community. Hi, there! 2. Discuss plan on imports, talk-us, and the appropriate regional mailing list: Hi there, again! 3. Be prepared to answer questions: I will surely give it a go! I don't have all the answers. 4. Review with the assistance of more technically-oriented and experienced OSM volunteers. I hope this message will put me in touch with a few. I'm fairly technically oriented myself (I'm a PhD in computer science), but I surely don't have tremendous depth of experience with the specifics of OSM's data management. 5. Not import the data without local buy-in. This goes without saying. III. LICENSE APPROVAL I've taken only a few prelimi