Changeset: 63016872
Soquel Demo Forest is limited by Comstock Mill Rd and Robinwood Lane here, on the other side is all private. While here some some minimal cleanup of exported polygon mess.
Closed by glebius
Tags
created_by | JOSM/1.5 (14178 ru) |
---|---|
source | I live here |
Discussion
-
Comment from stevea
Gleb, I'm disappointed that after all of our good communication you continue to characterize the three versions of imported SCCGIS data which were carefully-curated over several years as "exported polygon mess."
We agree they are not "perfect," as very few things in OSM are. We agree they are (maybe about 98% or 99%) correct, as polygons and multipolygons are perfectly valid OSM data structures, and the data provided by the County are/were perfectly valid based on cadestral/parcel data. We agree that you "prefer" to use your JOSM tool reltoolbox to assist you in conflating edges, and Frederik Ramm, mailing lists and I agree that "to take perfectly valid data and convert it to another format as this tool does" is essentially a senseless waste of time.
I understand that "you live here" (and for many decades, I have lived here, too) and want to see data improve in our County. However, it remains true that there ARE existing data surrounding us in OSM. If/as/when data are "just plain wrong," of course, I encourage you to correct them. But to disparage the existing, correct data with mean comments like "mess" is not in the spirit of OSM.
Thank you for your improvements.
-
Comment from glebius
The exported data is of very bad quality. I would dare
to say of extremely bad quality, since even roads
sometimes do not reflect reality.In this particular area curve of Comstock Mill Rd
didn't follow real road. Robinridge Lane didn't even
had a single point matching reality, it was going
to the north-east of Comstock, crossing several
private lots, while in reality it goes south of Comstock.
I fixed that 6 months ago.The polygon data is also shit. The county data (at
least the data they give to you) do not reflect reality.
A wood where in reality there is a meadow - multiple
examples. Vice versa - multiple examples. Soquel
Demo Forest going over private property. I know it
is incorrect, I can give you names of people whose
land was mapped as SDF.Finally, even most official not outdated cadestral/parcel
data is incorrect. Let me explain why. It is data of the
last land survey that was converted to Lon/Lat in a
very rough manner. The actual borders of lots
are defined not by lat/lon but in a text manner, e.g.
"600 feet from junction", "300 feet along canyon".
When county does surveys they encounter lots of
problems - streams changed their curve, a road has
moved due to mudslide, etc.
After survey is done, new data enters the database.
I believe for surveys made in last 10 years it has a very
good precision. But for some lots last survey was
performed in 19th century! Until survey is done, the
actual border is where neighbors agree it to be.
Where a fence is, or where a road or stream is now.
Which means TRUTH ON THE GROUND. Not in the
county database, sorry.We already discussed quality of data at database
level: adjacent polygons overlap, are not connected
to each other. An attempt to improve forest borderline
pulls a ton of problems. This all just blocks editing of
data by inexperienced mappers.So what is our goal: to fill the map with something
so that map looks nice when zoomed out? Or may be
to maintain a copy of county cadestral/parcel db? I believe
our goal is to have the best damn map in the world,
which is true and precise at any zoom level! In some
regions of the world OSM is already damn best. In the
SC county we are like stuck in a clinch, we are in a limbo.
New mappers open data in JOSM, see the mess and run
away. Those who are willing to resolve the mess are being
asked to stay away. But still edits are coming in, so your
endeavors to do continuous exports become more and more
difficult. May be it is time to stop exporting? Exporting
was a good thing 10 years ago, when OSM was all virgin
and white. Now it does more evil than good.I really wish we escalate this disagreement to a larger level,
so that more people can participate. -
Comment from stevea
Gleb, there are two imports we are talking about here. One was OSM-US' TIGER import of roads and rail in 2007-8, which many agree was of poor quality, but we are more-or-less "stuck" with it, and the solution is to improve it with better-and-better developing strategies. Some people estimate it might take thirty years to clean up TIGER in the USA. OK, maybe it will.
The other import was the SCCGIS landuse import that nmixter (a friend of mine who I and many others have reviled and even ridiculed at his poor and wide-ranging imports all over California). If you read our County wiki page, you'll see HE "made the mess of the initial import" and I am the one (with some others) who has spent many years, thousands of edits and countless hours improving these data to a state of "decency." (You have every right to disagree with that word). I have also said that when the present v3 discovers that SCCGIS offers newer data (2020? 2021?) and might become v4, I endeavor to enter the data with shared multipolygon boundaries where/as it makes sense to do so. This is highly ambitious, shows my continuing dedication to improving the map in ways that it naturally evolves, keeps me and others engaged in how best to improve our County data and opens the gigantic discussion of the difficulties about how best to conflate.
When you say "the exported data are of very bad quality" I don't know if you are talking about TIGER, SCCGIS or both. I think "both." I agree that TIGER's rural roads in the mountains are atrocious, closer to "an hallucination" rather than reality. Please, as you know better reality, fix these. I believe you are doing fine so far; I and the map greatly appreciate your good, solid work.
I, too, would like others to join this discussion. I, too, would like OSM to become "the best damn map in the world." I was NOT the person who imported TIGER, nor did I import the SCCGIS data, rather, I painstakingly improved the SCCGIS data from the hideous mess that arose from nmixter's "trigger happy import finger" as best I could, and this untangling took years of my best efforts. People like you who seem "closer to the action" (you live here, too, as you say) DO improve the map, and rightly so; I am very glad of that. It isn't that you and/or others are being asked to be "hands off" the imported data, I and others WANT you and others to improve the imported data, and you are. (You complain about it, I hear you loud and clear). What we asked you to be "hands off" about was the "reltoolbox" automation of polygon edge conflation that you were doing, which made bad data that were getting better MUCH more confusing, especially for novice editors (and we need all the new mappers we can get).
I agree with you that decades-old data like TIGER and SCCGIS imports were an early "first draft" to get SOME data into the map so it wasn't such a blank canvas. We are beyond doing such things today in areas as richly data-populated as our County (though I'd honestly call it "medium data populated" rather than "richly"). There are no new imports proposed — except the possible improvements a v4 SCCGIS landuse import MIGHT offer; we haven't had that discussion yet as newer data won't be available for a couple/few years. Simultaneously, we can and should improve these data, with, yes, I agree with you 100%, "truth on the ground" approach. Even our wiki says that the landuse import (again, not my idea, not my doing, though my passion to clean up, yes) was "a first step to getting some landuse data into the map" and that more details and better data would follow. That is exactly what you are doing, and correctly so.
Regarding "A wood where in reality there is a meadow - multiple examples. Vice versa - multiple examples." Here is my (partial) answer: there continues to be misunderstanding/debate about landuse vs. landcover. The SCCGIS data did tag as landuse=forest areas which were imported as TP (Timber Production, that is clearly "forest" as OSM means it). Sometimes, a clearing (meadow) could be seen upon this land (trees were felled in a timber forest, nothing strange about that) and so we would superimpose a landuse=meadow on top of that. Amazingly, mapnik/Standard (now Carto) rendered that quite pleasingly. Likewise, many areas which the County zones (remember, zoning is only a "first step" at accurate landuse mapping, and landcover is not landuse) as "farmland" may largely be covered with trees. Many of these areas are orchards, vineyards or simply "still trees" but the land COULD be used for agricultural cultivation, which technically makes the "landuse=farmland" 100% accurate, even as a visual/aerial/satellite/on-the-ground observation might say "hey, there's nothing but TREES here, why is this tagged FARMland?!" Because that's what its landuse actually is, that's why. Let's not (between simply the two of us) debate landuse vs. landcover, we are not going to solve it without the help of the much larger OSM community.
I suggest we take this to the Discussion page of Santa Cruz County's wiki: https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Talk:Santa_Cruz_County,_California . That page hasn't been touched in 8-1/2 years and it is time to take it there so it is more public than in a Changeset Comment like here.
Honestly, I believe our goals are much more inline with each other than they are at odds with each other. We have some "chunks of junk" that need improvement/clean-up (just like TIGER, but simultaneously with much grumbling/complaining but also some good strategies — and we are cleaning that up, too). You are doing good work at cleaning up the imported data around here (both TIGER roads and SCCGIS landuse polygons). Yes, it is slow going, it will take years. (It took me about five years to clean up Nathan/nmixter's SCCGIS v1 data through v2 cleanup and v3 re-import). The map is a big place, the world is a big place. Our county is a finite amount of data in OSM. It is a substantial amount of data, but it isn't so large that a project like ours, with cooperation and consensus among its participants (like us) can't get it done — we CAN get it done and we ARE getting it done.
Best regards,
Steve -
Comment from stevea
As suggested, this discussion is "moved" to https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Talk:Santa_Cruz_County,_California so that we may better engage a wider OSM community.
-
Comment from glebius
Sorry for not replying. I will reply by email today.
-
Comment from stevea
No problem; take your time, and let's take it to the Talk page rather than here, as it is the "more public/wider community" forum that encourages more people to see the discussion and participate if they want to do so.
Ways (20)
- 628861087, v1
- 628861088, v1
- 628861089, v1
- 628861090, v1
- Comstock Mill Road (628861091), v1
- 628861092, v1
- Comstock Mill Road (10553403), v13
- 41170772, v7
- 42692351, v6
- 133106829, v2
- Comstock Mill Road (556263815), v4
- 598662583, v2
- 598662595, v2
- 598662597, v2
- 598662598, v2
- 601760642, v2
- 628856484, v2
- 628856485, v2
598636619, v2601760643, v2
Relations (5)
- 91083835, v6
- 498437495, v2
- 533889975, v2
- 5697764134, v2
- 5697764603, v2
- 5697907419, v2
502591585, v2533889620, v2533889640, v21464594178, v21464594181, v21464594189, v21464594190, v21464594193, v22851397925, v22851397930, v22851397949, v22851397950, v22851397951, v22851397952, v2
Welcome to OpenStreetMap!
OpenStreetMap is a map of the world, created by people like you and free to use under an open license.
Hosting is supported by Fastly, OSMF corporate members, and other partners.
https://openstreetmap.org/copyright | https://openstreetmap.org |
Copyright OpenStreetMap and contributors, under an open license |