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 it. But I agree with the general sentiment expressed here so far, that the rest of the tags can safely be deleted. -- SEJ -- twitter: @geomantic -- skype: sejohnson8 There are two types of people in the world. Those that can extrapolate from incomplete data. On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 1:19 PM, Apollinaris Schoell <ascho...@gmail.com>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 useful. > > > On Aug 21, 2013, at 10:09 AM, Jason Remillard <remillard.ja...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > 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 > > feature id. There is no reason for us to maintain the other data. > > - You might want to keep the ele tags. > > > > Thanks > > Jason > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 9:24 PM, Kevin Kenny <kken...@nycap.rr.com> > wrote: > >> 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 > >> > >> > >> ele= is certainly meaningful for aeroways. And I suspect that the > >> UUID will be meaningful when trying to cross-reference back to the > >> original data. > >> > >> > >> On 08/20/2013 06:04 PM, Apollinaris Schoell wrote: > >>> > >>> go for it. > >>> actually the ele tag is quite wrong on peaks and should be removed too > or > >>> renamed to something like estimated ele > >> > >> > >> Please don't. If you want to add a tag like ele:status=estimated, that > would > >> be a better solution. There's always imprecision in elevations; even GPS > >> usually has considerable vertical dilution of position. An elevation > derived > >> from photogrammetric contour lines is better than no elevation at all. > >> > >> -- > >> 73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin > >> > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> 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
