Re: [Talk-us] [Imports] US Golf Courses from GNIS
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 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 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 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 wrote: On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 4:05 PM, Golf Geek 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.
Re: [Talk-us] [Imports] US Golf Courses from GNIS
On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 3:22 PM, Toby Murray wrote: > > My mapping OCD may even require that I trace > outlines instead of simply importing points. Crap. I was at the > pharmacy earlier today. Should have asked if they make a cream for > that. There isn't a cream, but some there's a suppository undergoing clinical trials now :). -- Jeff Ollie ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] [Imports] US Golf Courses from GNIS
On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 3:06 PM, Richard Weait wrote: > Hi all, > > I hope that golfgeek realizes that we are criticizing the method and > result of the import. We're welcoming of enthusiastic newcomers to > OpenStreetMap. So, "Welcome!" > > Now, let's clean this up a bit. Indeed. As negative as I sounded in my first message, I am not entirely anti-import. But I do maintain a very high bar for what I consider a "good" import. Typically this means spending many hours on it with heavy manual inspection. I would be happy to take, for example, a Kansas extract of this data and import it myself. My mapping OCD may even require that I trace outlines instead of simply importing points. Crap. I was at the pharmacy earlier today. Should have asked if they make a cream for that. Toby ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] [Imports] US Golf Courses from GNIS
Hi all, I hope that golfgeek realizes that we are criticizing the method and result of the import. We're welcoming of enthusiastic newcomers to OpenStreetMap. So, "Welcome!" Now, let's clean this up a bit. Golfgeek, can you tell us how you came to know that you could import golf data to OSM, but didn't realize that advance consultation was required? If we aren't documenting this properly, we'd appreciate if you can help us fix the documentation. Best regards, Richard (Oh, look, another triple bogey) Weait. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] [Imports] US Golf Courses from GNIS
On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 2:45 PM, Josh Doe wrote: > 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. +1 for not adding copious amounts of tags along with the import. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] [Imports] US Golf Courses from GNIS
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 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 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 wrote: >>> On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 4:05 PM, Golf Geek 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 >>>
Re: [Talk-us] [Imports] US Golf Courses from GNIS
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 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 wrote: >> On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 4:05 PM, Golf Geek 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 > impo...@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] [Imports] US Golf Courses from GNIS
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 wrote: > On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 4:05 PM, Golf Geek 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 ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] [Imports] US Golf Courses from GNIS
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 4:05 PM, Golf Geek 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 ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
