On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 2:49 PM, Andrea Musuruane <musur...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Andrea, I understand this is your first import (and I definitely hope it's not your > last!). It's really difficult to get things right the first time. Imports > are not easy tasks - there are so much things to pay attention to. > I find your goal valuable. Having buildings for Sabbioneta (BTW, it's nice > place I visited some moons ago :-)) in OSM is definitely welcome. Yes I was joking, really thank you for your time. I hope our work could help future import processes. > > The "Schedule" chapter is missing. > >> > > > Fine, but English can be improved: *The Municipality of Sabbioneta released a written permission in December > 2017 stating it allows works derived from the "Carta Tecnica Comunale" to > be distributed under the ODbL. My aim is to upload building data by the end > of February 2018. * > > > "Import Type" section in "Import Data" chapter is missing. You should > >> likely say your import is a one-time import, you won't use automated > >> scripts, all the tags will be entered manually and data will be > imported in > >> the OSM database using JOSM. > > > > > > > > I hope that everything is clearer now > > > > > Yes, much better, thanks. > English can be improved: > *This is a one-time import. The dataset will be uploaded as a single > changeset without using an automated script. All the tags will be entered > manually and the dataset will be uploaded using JOSM.* Done thank you > You should upload the original dataset. > > > > > > > > I can't. the Municipality license it's just to extract the data and share > > throught Osm. > > > > > I think it's fine but, if possible, I'd like to have a more authoritative > (i.e. legal) opinion about this: we can't see the source data set but we're > allowed to derive works from it. > "Data license" should link to a text copy of the ODbL. > >> "Type of license" should be "ODbL". > > > > > > > > Done (I hope) > > > > > This is strictly linked with the previous point. > *Data license:* *proprietary* (owned by the Municipality of Sabbioneta) > [...] > *ODbL Compliance verified:* Municipality of Sabbioneta has agreed to > license *derived* data under the ODbL > <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ODbL>. I am waiting clarification but I belive this doesn't stop the import (I hope) > The data still have some issue: > >> - adjacent buildings that are not connected > >> - a building has self-intersecting ways > > > > > > Fix it, sorry Josm marked as Advertising and I ignored them. > > > > > JOSM validator still shows two warnings you must address. Yes now > > > - churches are tagged with "denominati" (it should be denomination) > > > > > > Yes sorry was a mistake depending to the shp field name limitation... > > > > > Now the OSM file has both the "denominati" and " "denomination" tags :-( Yes sorry... 😅 > > > - bell towers are tagged with man_made=campanile (shouldn't it be > >> man_made=tower + tower:type=bell_tower?) and without the building tag. > See > >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:tower:type%3Dbell_tower > > > > > > I found it in the wiki https://wiki.openstreetmap.org > > /wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dcampanile > > > > > This has been discussed in the past in the talk-it ML. > The tag man_made=campanile is documented in the wiki but is used only 791 > times. Moreover the picture refers to the Swedish Klockstapel which is > completely different from a "campanile". The normal tagging for a campanile > is man_made=tower + tower:type= bell_tower (used 10595 times). Even the > man_made=campanile wiki page suggest to use this tagging. Ok, at the beginning when I found "Campanile" I said "this is perfect!!" and I haven't search further... > some buildings are split in different parts (still tagged as building=*) > >> and you assign different heights to them. I'm not an expert about this > but > >> it seems this is not the right procedure. Please read > >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:height#Height_of_buildings and > >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Simple_3D_buildings > > > > > > Was identified all single buildings that have different height to add in > a > > future mapping phase other tag to improve the detail map (level, color, > > roof_,shape, etc.). That was made with a manually split procedure but I > > have splited only the building (not the building part). > > > > > Your tagging is wrong. Look at the following example. > [image: Inline image 1] > This is a house. It is a single building. This also means you should have > only one building tag on the building outline. > But you made two buildings (i.e. with two building tags): one for the lower > part (a multi polygon) and one for the higher part (a closed way). But > different parts must be tagged with building:part as explained on > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Simple_3D_buildings Yes now I have understud and you are absolutely right, I fixed that and the other similar cases (almost all the multipolygon). > I have some troubles with your conflation phase which is summarized as > >> "Merge the tag and the history of the existing features through the JOSM > >> Utilsplugin2 plugin;". It's not clear, at least to me, how > Utilsplugin2 is > >> helpful in this context. I suppose (because you didn't write it) you'll > use > >> the "Copy tags from previous selection (Shift+R)" feature. > > > > > > > > That was my original plan > > > > > > > >> BTW, isn't it simpler and less error prone to use the "More Tools -> > >> Replace geometry" tool? > > > > > > > > That was a suggestion from the talk-it, but I will return to my original > > plan. > > > > > Your plan now is "Merge the tags from the existing features using the "Copy > selected key(s)/Value(s)" and the "Past tag" tools;" > Please use the "More Tools -> Replace geometry" tool. You have to select > the new feature (e.g. the one derived from the CTC) and the current > feature. The tool will preserve the feature history (which is really > recommanded), it will merge the tags (prompting you to resolve possible > conflicts) and it will use the new geometry - all in one shot. Much better thanks. > QA phase is still missing. Do you plan to use some kind of validator > >> (e.g.. JOSM validator)? When? Do you plan to do some kind of post import > >> verification? How? > > > > > > > > QA it's made. As I wrote above after the import I will work a lot on the > > Sabbioneta area so I will verification and monitoring all the changeset > and > > I will any potential mistakes. > > > > > Right now the plan is "The Topology Checker QGIS Plugin and the Josm > validator to prevent most problems before uploading the data." > Please add something about what you will do *after* the import. For > example, you can use again the JOSM validator (on the whole OSM data and > not only on the buildings) and/or use Osmose. Ok BTW, how will you merge POI on nodes and POI on buildings? For example the > Teatro Olimpico and the townhall? "Teatro Olimpico" is wrong both in the denomination and in the localization. In order to not delete them I could keep both , but it could be redundant . If you struggle to follow this thread in English, we can continue in > Italian on the talk-it mailing list. No problem for the english but If we swith only to the talk-it how does the community could authorize the import? How does this work? Thanks again Andrea ciao
_______________________________________________ Talk-it mailing list Talk-it@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it
