Talk:Santa Cruz County, California

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Is the import, slated to be finished on Sept 20th, 2009 done?

Are there any plans to add meaningful tags to 'special use' areas in an automated way, or should we start manually annotating?

Any clue what happened here? There's a large landuse area that is marked as farm, when it couldn't possibly be. Is it really marked as agricultural in the original dataset, or was there an error in the translation to OSM format?

In the same area, you can see a large number of nodes that do not have tags and aren't part of any ways. Will there be any work done to automatically clean those, or should we manually delete them when we come across them?

And finally, what should be done with landuse areas that are apparently meaningless? Should we bulldoze them away as clutter, or is it preferred that we leave them, in case they have some particularly subtle meaning that someone else might be able to figure out? --DanHomerick 16:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

stevea's reply to DanHomerick

Yes, nmixter has confirmed ( that the uploads intended to be uploaded have concluded. Now it is up to the greater OSM community to adjust/edit/refine those data. The most important efforts will be in the removal of duplicate data, and the correction of data which are clearly wrong: misspellings which cause failure to render, such as Name= instead of name=, or Park_Type instead of park:type, and not following rules or agreed-upon guidelines/conventions, as with park:type=county_park vs. park:type=city_park, and so on. Next might be the identification and correction of data which are correct as officially uploaded, but which contradict actual facts on-the-ground, as for example a "public_facility" which has recently become an obvious public park. There are less-important categories of corrections and additions, too. But the ones identified are the most important after a large import such as what we just had happen in Santa Cruz County.

It is my understanding that the 'special_use' areas MUST be manually annotated, as there was/is no obvious OSM landuse tag to map them to. These could be a wide variety of landuses, some which may, some which may not map to OSM landuse tags. Other sources and methods (like on-the-ground surveys) must be used to determine landuse on these parcels, and even if and when this can be determined and entered/corrected into OSM, it is possible OSM may not render the landuse tag chosen. A descriptive tag may be helpful even if it doesn't render, as "special_use" is not very helpful but something more specific likely is, especially as renderers get upgraded to include more landuses. OSM's attitude of "liberal (but be accurate) tagging" guides here.

We should delete stray nodes when we come across them. The Validator plug-in notices and can rather effortlessly clean these up, if you have it installed, pay attention to its notifications at upload time, and "Fix" (button) reported Errors.

"Landuse areas that are apparently meaningless" is a matter of subjectivity. There are the official data which have been uploaded, there are what the OSM community thinks about these, and there are what the renderers do with them. Clearly the former and latter have tried to become one during and through the harmonization process of the import itself. It is the middle case of "what do we think of official data (polygons with landuse tags) that don't get rendered" that gives rise to a debate of "bulldoze as clutter" vs. "leave as factual data, perhaps for future renderers." And there are certainly other potential points of view that can be injected into this multifaceted discussion. Data in OSM which are not rendered do not "hurt" rendered maps. Some of those are just plain wrong (or are duplicates, or outdated/obsolete), and those ought to be removed. CORRECT data which do not render certainly do cause some visual clutter while editing (e.g. in JOSM), but if they are true and factual data, I believe they should be left in. Think about it this way: if a renderer comes along and suddenly becomes able to render these data, but you removed them, are you going to suddenly add them back in? Likely not. This is why OSM allows (and even encourages) rather liberal tagging, even (and especially) when it is not explicitly, currently, prettily rendered. It is not "some particularly subtle meaning that someone else might be able to figure out" but rather some particular future user/use/renderer that has not yet been imagined or which has not yet been written into software that will figure this out.