Here are some possible defects i've found in the import process:
- Buildings are also tagged as areas, which is redundant
- Sites are marked historical instead of Key:historic (Example)
- There seem to be a lot of tags with 0 as a value--are these of value?
- I see, looking at the source, that "reservoir" is misspelled, so there should be a lot of "resevoirs" around...
--Pouletic 03:45, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
A few things I've noticed:
- The Key:width for ways is in feet (from MassGIS data), but is missing the suffix "ft". This will be interpreted as meters, the default unit.
- Some areas imported from the OpenSpace layer appear to not have been simplified, resulting in ways that have unnecessary node density, see SE border of .
- The OpenSpace areas often overlap roads. Is there a way to automate snapping the borders of these ways to roads, or will it have to be done manually?
Oleklorenc 22:22, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
One more thing:
Since the spelling of the landuse=reservoir tag has been corrected, huge areas of the state have disappeared under water. I see from MassGis_Layer_Openspace that the use of landuse=reservoir was meant to convey the idea that the land in question is protected watershed. The fact that this is a landuse tag makes such a use seem reasonable. However, this is at odds with the definition in the wiki which describes landuse=reservoir as a "man-made body of stored water". Both the Mapnik and OSMArender tiles show these areas in light blue. After comparing these areas to aerial photographs and my local knowledge, I can state that few if any of them represent bodies of water. Many of them do not even _contain_ bodies of water.
I cannot find a tag which does indicate protected watershed. Perhaps a new tag, such as landuse=watershed or landuse=water_supply is needed.