I heard back from the user - this import is described at http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/imports/2010-October/000673.html
I'm following up on using smarter-sort.py for subsequent work, as well as using a separate userid Off to bed - Paul > -----Original Message----- > From: Toby Murray [mailto:toby.mur...@gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 9:52 PM > To: talk-us > Subject: Re: [Talk-us] California landuse import > > 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 _______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
