Well I got a few comments on IRC about this but no one seems to have a real problems with it. I just noticed more of them going in tonight: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/9357716 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/9361394 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/9365434
These changesets are all nodes. I assume the ways are coming in a subsequent changeset. This is pretty risky so I will keep an eye on this tomorrow. Toby On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 6:06 PM, Toby Murray <toby.mur...@gmail.com> wrote: > Frederik's message on the imports mailing list reminded me... I was > going to ask if anyone knows about the import performed in these two > changesets in California: > http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/9090477 > http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/9091078 > > The result is clearly visible on the map here: > http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=39.282&lon=-121.381&zoom=10&layers=M > > It looks like there may have been a similar one to the southeast of > there as well. > > Here is an example of an imported object: > http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/1722536 > > The import itself looks like it was executed fairly well from a > technical standpoint although I would take issue with the lack of > information in the changeset comment and no source tag (although it > looks like the relations have a source tag on them at least) > > But I don't remember seeing any talk about this import before it > happened. Is this useful data to OSM? The example relation I linked to > is a natural=wood area which is certainly a mappable thing although it > does seem to abruptly stop at the county border which I doubt is the > real boundary of the forest... thoughts? > > Toby > _______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
