Thank you very much, you are right. Corrected in the wiki, in the code and we will check for tags consistency.
2013/1/18 Rafael Avila Coya <ravilac...@gmail.com>: > > > On 18/01/13 00:01, Cruz Enrique Borges Hernandez wrote: >> Fist of all, thanks for the comments. I will answers them in place. >> >>> There appear to be some ways with duplicated way nodes (i.e. a way having >>> the same node multiple times, other than when closing a loop). JOSM's >>> validator can find these. >> >> This have already been addressed. >> >>> There are some duplicate nodes. An example can be found at 40.8253351, >>> -5.4437406. I'll be talking more about duplicate nodes later. >> >> I am not sure about this (most probably is a duplicate node in the original >> data) >> but in any case the JOSM validator should catch these. We have tried very >> hard >> to reuse as much nodes and ways as the data allow us. >> >>> The road network does not appear to be consistently connected, for example >>> at 40.8182542, -5.4476705 >> >> We are already aware of this problem. The road network is probably the less >> interested part of the dataset: they are inaccurate and their geometries are >> completely screw-up. It is only provided because some locals mapper thought >> that it can be useful as a starting point in a completely empty place. >> >>> Tagging: >>> >>> You appear to be using landuse=reservoir for unknown water. Most of the ones >>> I looked at would be better suited as natural=water. natural=water is also >>> better suited for unknown bodies of water. >> >> Geometries with water tags are one of the most difficult tags to translate. >> The problem comes from the original data: it does not maintain internal >> consistency between different towns. Others difficult tags are parking >> spaces and greenfield for the same reason. In the end, all of them (and >> probably others ones that will appear in other regions) should be revised >> manually by the local community. We have already planned to have >> wiki pages with regional information about the import process given tips >> about this things. >> >>> Are there any tags that will be used other than those in this sample file? >> >> This is the full list (sorry about the spanish): >> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Traduccion_metadatos_catastro_a_map_features >> >> Please, if you found any mistake, let us know before changing the table. > > I let you know some mistakes I've seen: > > 1) In "Tipos de cultivo", the MI "Mimbreras o cañaverales", is tagged > wetland=marsh, that is better tagged as natural=wetland + wetland=marsh > ( http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural%3Dwetland ) > > 2) For regular expresions for ROTULO, at the end of the page, I think > tags should be consistent with those we have in other parts of the file, > like for example: > > Ermita (RER,SER) is tagged as amenity=place_of_worship, > religion=christian, denomination=catholic, building=hermitage in the > Religioso (R) section, but tagged as amenity=place_of_worship, > religion=christian, denomination=roman_catholic, building=church in the > table of "expresión regular" at the end of the page. > > I didn't correct any of these errors. > >> >>> The import is proposing a new tag, use=agricultural. This is found on >>> landuse=meadow areas. Are there any new tags that this import is proposing >>> to use? >> >> This is ,almost for sure, a bug in our code. Anyway, the complete list are in >> the previous link. >> >>> How were the tag translations arrived at? >> >> The translation tags was made from: >> - What catastro documentation said: >> >> http://www.catastro.meh.es/pdf/formatos_intercambio/catastro_fin_cat_2006.pdf. >> - What experts mappers have said. In fact, the pages have been almost >> completely filled by expert mappers from the Spanish community. >> - What persons close to the catastro office have said to us. >> - Obviously, our own experience using this data in other projects. >> >>> Taking the example of >>> landuse=greenfield, was this decided on based on descriptions from the >>> catastro, or was it based on inspection of the areas that it applies to with >>> aerial imagery, surveys or other resources? >>> >>> The areas tagged with landuser=greenfield aren't areas with no past or >>> present buildings scheduled for development (i.e. virgin ground that will be >>> turned into a construction site) >> >> Our experience over that specific tag is that catastro have overused it: >> there >> are places tagged (in catastro) as a greenfield that should be another thing >> (normally landuse=village_green or recreation_ground). Probably this is >> due to differences in the definitions of the two ontologies. >> >>> If you go for this method, how do you intend to handle duplicate nodes? The >>> problem is that if two files that contain nodes at the same position are >>> uploaded in two different edit sessions JOSM will not merge the nodes, even >>> if they were merged in the concatenated file. >> >> This problem should not happen never. The splitted files consist on an entire >> block of buildings that cannot share any node, by definition. In any case, >> the >> conflation with existing data will be responsibility of the local mappers. >> >>> Other: >>> >>> To what extent do you intend the importers verify the data? Do you expect >>> them to >>> >>> 1. Verify each object in some way against some other source (e.g. imagery) >>> 2. Verify the file for consistency (e.g. that no buildings are in water) >>> 3. Rely on cat2osm2's verification >> >> We expect them to use (at least) 1 and 2 and of course the JOSM validator. >> I am not sure on what you mean with 3. >> >> Moreover, we think that this task should be made ONLY by experts mappers >> who really know the surrounding area in order to be able to fix the >> ambiguities or the mistakes. Even more, probably some of them have to be >> resolved "in place". >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Talk-es mailing list >> Talk-es@openstreetmap.org >> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-es >> > > -- > -------------------------------- > > Por favor, non me envíe documentos con extensións .doc, .docx, .xls, > .xlsx, .ppt, .pptx, aínda podendoo facer, non os abro. > > Atendendo á lexislación vixente, empregue formatos estándares e abertos. > > http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenDocument#Tipos_de_ficheros > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-es mailing list > Talk-es@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-es -- Ander Pijoan Lamas Research Assistant, Deustotech Computer Science Engineer University of Deusto E-mail: ander.pij...@deusto.es Phone: +34 664471228 in: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=162888312 _______________________________________________ Talk-es mailing list Talk-es@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-es
