Re: [Talk-us] Proposed cleanup: NHD rivers
On Mar 22, 2011, at 9:17 PM, Paul Norman wrote: This is now complete for the area west of Portland Oregon as a test. http://www.paulnorman.ca/blog/?attachment_id=96 shows the difference. Nice improvement! I like it. About 99.8% of the data was untouched since it was imported. I checked the other dozen or so ways by hand. I did that import, and did a lot of cleaning up as I was importing it. So I think that probably reduced the amount of cleanup that anyone needed to do later. But I definitely felt at the time that the source data and value translations were a little vague. I really like the current proposal and example results. Looks great! - Alan ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Proposed cleanup: NHD rivers
If there are no objections to the retagging part I'll proceed with retagging FCodes 46003 and 46006 as documented on http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Pnorman/NHDCleanup I will not be joining waterways at this time. -Original Message- From: Paul Norman [mailto:penor...@mac.com] Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2011 6:52 PM To: 'Richard Welty'; talk-us@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Proposed cleanup: NHD rivers This is the view I subscribe to too. An example of two ways I would want to join would be http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/68711710 and http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/68710322 These differ only in nhd:com_id and they're both really short ways. In any case, I'd like to make it clear that there are two separate parts. The retagging of the ways, and the joining of them. The first one is a serious issue, visible out to z8 in the rendering and hopefully uncontroversial to change. The second one is a less important issue that it seems more debate is required on. For the retagging, I've done up a table at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Pnorman/NHDCleanup which explains the changes I'm proposing. I should of thought of a table earlier Also, I need to empathize that any data edited by users since the imports won't be touched without manual review. -Original Message- From: Richard Welty [mailto:rwe...@averillpark.net] Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2011 5:38 PM To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Proposed cleanup: NHD rivers On 3/20/11 8:16 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: On 3/20/2011 8:13 PM, Richard Welty wrote: d suggest using relations to group ways that are parts of named rivers rather than trying to combine the ways. If the only difference between the ways is that NHD assigns a different ID number to them, not combining them seems silly. if the ids are consistent from one release to the next and there is any notion of doing an update later, then combining them destroys useful information. richard ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Proposed cleanup: NHD rivers
This is now complete for the area west of Portland Oregon as a test. http://www.paulnorman.ca/blog/?attachment_id=96 shows the difference. About 99.8% of the data was untouched since it was imported. I checked the other dozen or so ways by hand. -Original Message- From: John Chambers [mailto:jcha...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2011 3:48 PM To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Proposed cleanup: NHD rivers I know of least one 46006 that I would consider a river (Tussahaw creek) , but doesn't have river in the name, but as bad as other NHD data I've seen is, this little problem will be small. upstream On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 4:50 PM, Paul Norman penor...@mac.com wrote: If there are no objections to the retagging part I'll proceed with retagging FCodes 46003 and 46006 as documented on http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Pnorman/NHDCleanup I will not be joining waterways at this time. -Original Message- From: Paul Norman [mailto:penor...@mac.com] Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2011 6:52 PM To: 'Richard Welty'; talk-us@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Proposed cleanup: NHD rivers This is the view I subscribe to too. An example of two ways I would want to join would be http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/68711710 and http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/68710322 These differ only in nhd:com_id and they're both really short ways. In any case, I'd like to make it clear that there are two separate parts. The retagging of the ways, and the joining of them. The first one is a serious issue, visible out to z8 in the rendering and hopefully uncontroversial to change. The second one is a less important issue that it seems more debate is required on. For the retagging, I've done up a table at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Pnorman/NHDCleanup which explains the changes I'm proposing. I should of thought of a table earlier Also, I need to empathize that any data edited by users since the imports won't be touched without manual review. -Original Message- From: Richard Welty [mailto:rwe...@averillpark.net] Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2011 5:38 PM To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Proposed cleanup: NHD rivers On 3/20/11 8:16 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: On 3/20/2011 8:13 PM, Richard Welty wrote: d suggest using relations to group ways that are parts of named rivers rather than trying to combine the ways. If the only difference between the ways is that NHD assigns a different ID number to them, not combining them seems silly. if the ids are consistent from one release to the next and there is any notion of doing an update later, then combining them destroys useful information. richard ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[Talk-us] Proposed cleanup: NHD rivers
A mapnik rendering change has revealed a problem in some areas with NHD imported waterways. An example of the problem is at http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=45.3lon=-123.3zoom=9layers=M Essentially, all the streams are tagged as waterway=river, with waterway=stream being used for what appear to be intermittent streams. I propose doing the following changes. These changes would *only* be done to ways that have not been modified since import. I have experience with this type change from cleanup on Canadian NHN data. 1. Adding intermittent=yes to NHD streams. 2. Downgrading waterway=river to waterway=stream for non-rivers. 3. Joining rivers into a single way Steps 1 and 2 would be done in one set of imports while joining rivers would be done in a second pass. Spot checks in the area linked indicate this would cause no problems. If verification with imagery was necessary I'd use MapQuest's Open Aerial Map as it seems to be the highest quality in these remote areas. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Proposed cleanup: NHD rivers
Has anyone determined for sure that the streams you plan to tag as intermittent are so, in fact? This would require either getting confirmation from the organization that made the original survey, or at least checking with folks with local knowledge that a large. enough sample of the streams were, in fact, all intermittent. ---Original Email--- Subject :[Talk-us] Proposed cleanup: NHD rivers From :mailto:penor...@mac.com Date :Sun Mar 20 16:29:54 America/Chicago 2011 A mapnik rendering change has revealed a problem in some areas with NHD imported waterways. An example of the problem is at http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=45.3lon=-123.3zoom=9layers=M Essentially, all the streams are tagged as waterway=river, with waterway=stream being used for what appear to be intermittent streams. I propose doing the following changes. These changes would *only* be done to ways that have not been modified since import. I have experience with this type change from cleanup on Canadian NHN data. 1. Adding intermittent=yes to NHD streams. 2. Downgrading waterway=river to waterway=stream for non-rivers. 3. Joining rivers into a single way Steps 1 and 2 would be done in one set of imports while joining rivers would be done in a second pass. Spot checks in the area linked indicate this would cause no problems. If verification with imagery was necessary I'd use MapQuest's Open Aerial Map as it seems to be the highest quality in these remote areas. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all. -- Hypatia of Alexandria ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Proposed cleanup: NHD rivers
I checked with http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/NHD#Mapping and StreamRiver 46003 was mapped to waterway=stream, and the description is intermittent streams. As far as I can tell, nothing else was mapped to waterway=stream. NAIP imagery seems to verify this. Seeing that the FCode was imported, I'm thinking I'll use that to identify which are rivers and which are streams. Essentially, this will be changing 46003 to intermittent streams and 46006 to streams, with exceptions for 46006 where the name indicates it's a river. -Original Message- From: j...@jfeldredge.com [mailto:j...@jfeldredge.com] Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2011 2:42 PM To: OpenStreetMap talk-us list Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Proposed cleanup: NHD rivers Has anyone determined for sure that the streams you plan to tag as intermittent are so, in fact? This would require either getting confirmation from the organization that made the original survey, or at least checking with folks with local knowledge that a large. enough sample of the streams were, in fact, all intermittent. ---Original Email--- Subject :[Talk-us] Proposed cleanup: NHD rivers From :mailto:penor...@mac.com Date :Sun Mar 20 16:29:54 America/Chicago 2011 A mapnik rendering change has revealed a problem in some areas with NHD imported waterways. An example of the problem is at http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=45.3lon=-123.3zoom=9layers=M Essentially, all the streams are tagged as waterway=river, with waterway=stream being used for what appear to be intermittent streams. I propose doing the following changes. These changes would *only* be done to ways that have not been modified since import. I have experience with this type change from cleanup on Canadian NHN data. 1. Adding intermittent=yes to NHD streams. 2. Downgrading waterway=river to waterway=stream for non-rivers. 3. Joining rivers into a single way Steps 1 and 2 would be done in one set of imports while joining rivers would be done in a second pass. Spot checks in the area linked indicate this would cause no problems. If verification with imagery was necessary I'd use MapQuest's Open Aerial Map as it seems to be the highest quality in these remote areas. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all. -- Hypatia of Alexandria ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Proposed cleanup: NHD rivers
1 and 2 make sense to me. What criteria would you use for 2? I have done a fair bit of NHD imports and simply used the name, i.e. river, to classify rivers. Some parts of the country have different naming traditions that others. What is the rationale for 3? On Sunday, March 20, 2011 05:29:54 pm Paul Norman wrote: A mapnik rendering change has revealed a problem in some areas with NHD imported waterways. An example of the problem is at http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=45.3lon=-123.3zoom=9layers=M Essentially, all the streams are tagged as waterway=river, with waterway=stream being used for what appear to be intermittent streams. I propose doing the following changes. These changes would *only* be done to ways that have not been modified since import. I have experience with this type change from cleanup on Canadian NHN data. 1. Adding intermittent=yes to NHD streams. 2. Downgrading waterway=river to waterway=stream for non-rivers. 3. Joining rivers into a single way Steps 1 and 2 would be done in one set of imports while joining rivers would be done in a second pass. Spot checks in the area linked indicate this would cause no problems. If verification with imagery was necessary I'd use MapQuest's Open Aerial Map as it seems to be the highest quality in these remote areas. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Proposed cleanup: NHD rivers
Name for 2. It might miss some rivers, but the data source doesn't differentiate between streams and rivers in any of the metadata. 3 is about making the rivers into single ways, more like a mapper would do by hand. I'm not really set on this step and if done it would be after steps 1 and 2 have been done everywhere. Looking at nhd:com_id it might cause problems with updating, so I'm thinking I'll drop this step for now. -Original Message- From: James U [mailto:jumba...@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2011 4:42 PM To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Proposed cleanup: NHD rivers 1 and 2 make sense to me. What criteria would you use for 2? I have done a fair bit of NHD imports and simply used the name, i.e. river, to classify rivers. Some parts of the country have different naming traditions that others. What is the rationale for 3? On Sunday, March 20, 2011 05:29:54 pm Paul Norman wrote: A mapnik rendering change has revealed a problem in some areas with NHD imported waterways. An example of the problem is at http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=45.3lon=-123.3zoom=9layers=M Essentially, all the streams are tagged as waterway=river, with waterway=stream being used for what appear to be intermittent streams. I propose doing the following changes. These changes would *only* be done to ways that have not been modified since import. I have experience with this type change from cleanup on Canadian NHN data. 1. Adding intermittent=yes to NHD streams. 2. Downgrading waterway=river to waterway=stream for non-rivers. 3. Joining rivers into a single way Steps 1 and 2 would be done in one set of imports while joining rivers would be done in a second pass. Spot checks in the area linked indicate this would cause no problems. If verification with imagery was necessary I'd use MapQuest's Open Aerial Map as it seems to be the highest quality in these remote areas. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Proposed cleanup: NHD rivers
On 3/20/11 7:50 PM, Paul Norman wrote: 3 is about making the rivers into single ways, more like a mapper would do by hand. I'm not really set on this step and if done it would be after steps 1 and 2 have been done everywhere. Looking at nhd:com_id it might cause problems with updating, so I'm thinking I'll drop this step for now. i'd suggest using relations to group ways that are parts of named rivers rather than trying to combine the ways. richard ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Proposed cleanup: NHD rivers
On 3/20/2011 8:13 PM, Richard Welty wrote: On 3/20/11 7:50 PM, Paul Norman wrote: 3 is about making the rivers into single ways, more like a mapper would do by hand. I'm not really set on this step and if done it would be after steps 1 and 2 have been done everywhere. Looking at nhd:com_id it might cause problems with updating, so I'm thinking I'll drop this step for now. i'd suggest using relations to group ways that are parts of named rivers rather than trying to combine the ways. If the only difference between the ways is that NHD assigns a different ID number to them, not combining them seems silly. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Proposed cleanup: NHD rivers
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 7:18 PM, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 7:13 PM, Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.netwrote: On 3/20/11 7:50 PM, Paul Norman wrote: 3 is about making the rivers into single ways, more like a mapper would do by hand. I'm not really set on this step and if done it would be after steps 1 and 2 have been done everywhere. Looking at nhd:com_id it might cause problems with updating, so I'm thinking I'll drop this step for now. i'd suggest using relations to group ways that are parts of named rivers rather than trying to combine the ways. There were several clients that did not attempt to connect the ways of each NHD linestring so there are duplicated nodes and ways that touch but aren't joined. Hopefully fixing this is what Paul was talking about. ... and the reach code is what should be joined on, probably not the com_id. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Proposed cleanup: NHD rivers
On 3/20/2011 8:18 PM, Ian Dees wrote: There were several clients that did not attempt to connect the ways of each NHD linestring so there are duplicated nodes and ways that touch but aren't joined. Hopefully fixing this is what Paul was talking about. Agreed - this is a safe case of duplicate node removal: when all items touching duplicate nodes are of type hydro - river, stream, lake, reservoir, etc (I forget the exact tag names). Just combining segments within the same reach code will frequently produce ways containing 500 nodes, which makes editing more complicated, and does not make any improvement to the usability of the map data. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Proposed cleanup: NHD rivers
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 7:30 PM, Mike N nice...@att.net wrote: On 3/20/2011 8:18 PM, Ian Dees wrote: There were several clients that did not attempt to connect the ways of each NHD linestring so there are duplicated nodes and ways that touch but aren't joined. Hopefully fixing this is what Paul was talking about. Agreed - this is a safe case of duplicate node removal: when all items touching duplicate nodes are of type hydro - river, stream, lake, reservoir, etc (I forget the exact tag names). Just combining segments within the same reach code will frequently produce ways containing 500 nodes, which makes editing more complicated, and does not make any improvement to the usability of the map data. The ways don't need to be *combined*, just *connected*. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Proposed cleanup: NHD rivers
On 3/20/2011 9:12 PM, Richard Welty wrote: if combining them meaningfully improves the map, by all means do it. Or improves editing. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Proposed cleanup: NHD rivers
This is the view I subscribe to too. An example of two ways I would want to join would be http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/68711710 and http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/68710322 These differ only in nhd:com_id and they're both really short ways. In any case, I'd like to make it clear that there are two separate parts. The retagging of the ways, and the joining of them. The first one is a serious issue, visible out to z8 in the rendering and hopefully uncontroversial to change. The second one is a less important issue that it seems more debate is required on. For the retagging, I've done up a table at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Pnorman/NHDCleanup which explains the changes I'm proposing. I should of thought of a table earlier Also, I need to empathize that any data edited by users since the imports won't be touched without manual review. -Original Message- From: Richard Welty [mailto:rwe...@averillpark.net] Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2011 5:38 PM To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Proposed cleanup: NHD rivers On 3/20/11 8:16 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: On 3/20/2011 8:13 PM, Richard Welty wrote: d suggest using relations to group ways that are parts of named rivers rather than trying to combine the ways. If the only difference between the ways is that NHD assigns a different ID number to them, not combining them seems silly. if the ids are consistent from one release to the next and there is any notion of doing an update later, then combining them destroys useful information. richard ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
