Re: [Talk-us] (Second attempt) Potential data source: Adirondack Park Freshwater Wetlands

[stevea]

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

[Kevin Kenny]

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=-73.9804=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=-73.9804=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, National 

Re: [Talk-us] (Second attempt) Potential data source: Adirondack Park Freshwater Wetlands

[Elliott Plack]

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

[Frederik Ramm]

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

[Kevin Kenny]

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=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=-74.5104=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 preliminary steps