Am 08/set/2013 um 10:39 schrieb Serge Wroclawski :
> * Reclassify objects which are currently gnis but should be other
> datasets (non-gnis).
being derived from one data set or the other is not an osm classification. Our
strength is crowd sourced data collection and maintenance / update. All
> From: Serge Wroclawski [mailto:emac...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Sunday, September 08, 2013 1:39 AM
> Cc: talk-us@openstreetmap.org; OSM Imports List
> Subject: Re: [Talk-us] GNIS tag removal proposal
>
> Paul,
>
> Agreed- and most of why I put this away was that I felt the d
13 at 4:54 AM, Paul Norman wrote:
> To recap and hopefully move forwards, I'm bringing this up again.
>
>> From: Serge Wroclawski [mailto:emac...@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2013 1:55 PM
>> Subject: [Talk-us] GNIS tag removal proposal
>>
>> Hi all
To recap and hopefully move forwards, I'm bringing this up again.
> From: Serge Wroclawski [mailto:emac...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2013 1:55 PM
> Subject: [Talk-us] GNIS tag removal proposal
>
> Hi all,
>
> I've been looking at the GNIS data and it
Hi Greg,
I think in all the back and forth you missed the fact that the gnis
feature id is staying put. Nobody has suggested removing it. Looking
at the node history it will be obvious if a feature was imported
(which is why we have the history function). The rest of the tags are
going because the
On Sat, Aug 24, 2013 at 12:26 PM, Ian Dees wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 24, 2013 at 2:22 PM, Greg Morgan wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 1:54 PM, Serge Wroclawski wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> I've been looking at the GNIS data and it's quite a mess.
>>>
>>
>>
>> This is a horribly crafted prop
On Sat, Aug 24, 2013 at 2:22 PM, Greg Morgan wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 1:54 PM, Serge Wroclawski wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I've been looking at the GNIS data and it's quite a mess.
>>
>
>
> This is a horribly crafted proposal. You haven't shown your research why
> but you declare the
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 1:54 PM, Serge Wroclawski wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I've been looking at the GNIS data and it's quite a mess.
>
This is a horribly crafted proposal. You haven't shown your research why
but you declare the GNIS tags as a mess. Your proposal is as good as me
declaring that a
> On Aug 21, 2013, at 10:19, Apollinaris Schoell wrote:
> > The ele tag is of unknown accuracy. It can be off by much more for
> > mountains. This is the case when it's a real steep cliff between the
> > sampling of NED data. found one peak where it was off by 300ft this is
> > simply wrong and no
> From: Serge Wroclawski [mailto:emac...@gmail.com]
> Subject: Re: [Talk-us] GNIS tag removal proposal
>
> There was another, gnis:fcode, I believe, which people wanted preserved.
> My solution to this ambiguity is to explicitly list the tags to remove,
> rather than say "A
On Aug 21, 2013, at 10:38, Steven Johnson wrote:
> I am strenuously in favor of keeping whichever feature ID enables us to know
> the lineage and provenance of the GNIS point. That bit of metadata can be
> useful for downstream uses.
I agree. While I know some are not fans of the various fea
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 1:09 PM, Jason Remillard
wrote:
> Hi Serge,
>
> - If there are two tags for the feature id, we should pick one and
> change the other one.
There aren't two tags for feature_id, there's only feature_id.
This UUID tag appears to be related to the import script itself, and
i
On Aug 21, 2013, at 10:19, Apollinaris Schoell wrote:
> The ele tag is of unknown accuracy. It can be off by much more for mountains.
> This is the case when it's a real steep cliff between the sampling of NED
> data. found one peak where it was off by 300ft this is simply wrong and not
> use
I am strenuously in favor of keeping whichever feature ID enables us to
know the lineage and provenance of the GNIS point. That bit of metadata can
be useful for downstream uses.
There are instances where the ele tag is useful, even if only as a rough
guide, but I don't have strong feelings about
The ele tag is of unknown accuracy. It can be off by much more for mountains.
This is the case when it's a real steep cliff between the sampling of NED data.
found one peak where it was off by 300ft this is simply wrong and not useful.
On Aug 21, 2013, at 10:09 AM, Jason Remillard wrote:
> H
Hi Serge,
- If there are two tags for the feature id, we should pick one and
change the other one.
- I don't think the ele tag should be renamed just because it is only
accurate to 60m. Everything in the database is an estimate.
- I would be ok with removing all of the gnis:* tags except the
featu
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 9:24 PM, Kevin Kenny wrote:
> And I suspect that the
> UUID will be meaningful when trying to cross-reference back to the
> original data.
Are you confusing the UUID with gnis:feature_id ?
- Serge
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk
On 08/20/2013 04:54 PM, Serge Wroclawski wrote:
In addition, I suggest that we remove two other tags conditionally.
I suggest we remove the "ele" tag unless the tag natural=peak is
present and that we remove "source" if the value for that tag is "USGS
Geonames" (which is just GNIS).penny stove
Hi Serge,
I am 100% OK, removing these tags.
Thanks
Jason.
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 4:54 PM, Serge Wroclawski wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I've been looking at the GNIS data and it's quite a mess.
>
> As a step towards cleaning up the mess, I'd like to discuss removing
> some extranious gnis tags in the
I'd be more excited by a proposal to de-dupe GNIS data... but the tag
cleanup is basically OK.
It would be nice if the editors more loudly removed these tags. Silent is
bad. That said:
*Explicitly Preserve:* gnis:feature_id gnis:id
*Consider deprecating*: gnis:edited, gnis:Cell, gnis:review,
gnis
The elevation attached to a GNIS point is taken from the National Elevation
Dataset (NED) which has a 30 meter resolution in many cases (can be as high
a resolution as 1 meter and as low a resolution as 60 meters depending on
the location). This means that you don't get the highest elevation, only
go for it.
actually the ele tag is quite wrong on peaks and should be removed too
or renamed to something like estimated ele
On 8/20/2013 1:54 PM, Serge Wroclawski wrote:
Hi all,
I've been looking at the GNIS data and it's quite a mess.
As a step towards cleaning up the mess, I'd like to dis
+1
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 4:54 PM, Serge Wroclawski wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I've been looking at the GNIS data and it's quite a mess.
>
> As a step towards cleaning up the mess, I'd like to discuss removing
> some extranious gnis tags in the editors (just as we do with TIGER and
> other tags).
>
Hi all,
I've been looking at the GNIS data and it's quite a mess.
As a step towards cleaning up the mess, I'd like to discuss removing
some extranious gnis tags in the editors (just as we do with TIGER and
other tags).
I would like to suggest that the editors remove the following tags entirely:
24 matches
Mail list logo
