Due to problems, I have started to revert all the changes made so far.
The problem is that there was a gap between the upload of nodes and the upload of ways, during which some of the nodes were changed.
I have already removed all the ways, and now continue with nodes.
Afterwards I will do a clean import by small chunks, each of which will contain several forests in their entirety - i.e. relations and all the ways and nodes belonging to these relations.
I believe all the changes are by now reverted (perhaps with the exceltion of ~1000 nodes which I couldn’t track down yet).
Any comments/suggestions before the second attempt?
I have started the second attempt. This time there are 20 smaller self-contained chunks.
The first one is already done:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/8539352
I see the additions near Modiin! Cool…
Should we delete the old forests?
Most editions are great!
In some places, though, like around the Canada park, the boundaries enclose open areas.
Do they describe KKL-managed areas? planned forests?
Two issues that I noticed:
The solution should be to reuse the same way in both relations. We do it in the administrative boundaries,
but the administrative boundaries are drawn by hand, and this is an automatic import.
I’m not sure it’s feasible.
dimka should answer this.
This is the case of a way with too many (more than 2000) nodes, that needs to be split into smaller ways.
The polygon algorithm takes care of it.
See more here
talkat.
The KKL guy indeed mentioned that the boundaries in the file refer to KKL managed areas, not necessarily real forests with trees.
Hmm that might have been an oversight on my part. The script (polyshp2osm) does not reuse nodes for different features (in our case forests), therefore the nodes get duplicated.
The import is slightly more than half way through, I will try to correct this through JOSM for the remaining data. As for what got uploaded
Hopefully the number of such duplicates is not large (this happens only in the case of two distinct forests sharing a common boundary).
I’ll make a list of such problematic forest pairs later. Then it shouldn’t be too difficult to merge the duplicates manually (again through JOSM).
dimka
I guess we should gradually correct this. Map readers would care about the actual land cover, not administrative jurisdiction.
Hi all,
the import of the forest dataset has been completed. Several problems have been encountered (mostly duplicated objects which needed to be reverted). There may be still some of these “orphaned” duplicates around but not many.
There are probably several dozens of yet other duplicated nodes coming from the data - like the ones mentioned by adrukh.
When I have time, I will be continuing with the import of POIs.
dimka
Great!
Thank you for all your work!
The Wiki List of Israeli Forests contains 263 forests.
Is that correct?
talkat.
HI All,
I have test the data in western gallil around EILON and i found that the names of the forest are wrong and not correct.
also some of the forest are no longer exist for the reason that there is new building near some of the civilization.
it look that the data is not update.
Tzur
OK, so what do I do with an area which is part of a KKL relation, but is not actualy a forest?
Delete it from the relation? That would be a shame. Most of these areas are uncultivated land that can be described as natural:scrub (בתה או גריגה).
Thank you, all this information is very important, as it allows us to estimate the actual quality of the KKL data.
You probably refer to Eilon (http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/1637969) and Hanita (http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/1637980) forests?
I see from the kkl:update_date tag that Eilon is pretty outdated (2005) but Hanita is not too much so (2010). Are these the only forests you meant?
I believe that we should not enforce any integrity of the KKL data, as our primary concern is to the up-do-dateness of the map.
But I would like nevertheless to have all such inconsistencies documented at least in this forum thread.
dimka
A possible solution:
split the areas into “forest” (keeping this in the original relation) and “scrub” (making a separate relation with a note such as “original boundary taken from KKL import, relation XXX.”
dimka
Thanks to all for their comments and active participation!
There should be 278 forests overall. I checked all the import again and found out that for some reason there appear 14 duplicate relations as follows:
Furthermore, there are additional 29 forests in http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/8651910.
That makes 263+29-6-8=278, so at least all (big) problems seem to be accounted for.
dimka
Ok, I’ve got the latest OSM data, and now there are 292 forests.
Meaning there are 14 duplicates?
talkat.