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.
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.
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).
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.
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.”
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:
6 duplicates in http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/8611316. This is a situation created by bulk_upload script: each pair of duplicates uses its own ways, but the ways themselves reuse the same nodes. Deleting this appears to be tricky, but doable.
The KKL import seems low quality in some areas… In the Carmel region it’s often detached completely from what’s on the ground. I currently just delete and replace whenever I encounter this.
Also, often times the administrated area is a fraction of the entire forest.
When the actual forest is different from the KKL administrated area, do you think the latter has relevance to a map user and should be preserved? Or should we map purely the physical features and delete it?
I would say the “this portion is administered by KKL” tagging should be kept if it is present and accurate, and removed otherwise.
Rationale: 1) the map should have no incorrect data, 2) the extra information is conceivably interesting to some data consumers. By analogy, if KKL were a municipality and the forest was a built-up area, we’d map the city limits even though there are buildings both inside and outside those limits, won’t we?
In my opinion, it is unlikely to be used except for very specific and extremely obscure cases. Furthermore, someone who wants such specialized data likely knows exactly what they’re doing, and can obtain it directly from KKL, where it’d be more up to date. The OSM data is 5 years old.
Sure, if the data is out of date, then either tag it appropriately or delete it, and let interested parties fetch it from the edit history or from KKL. (Sorry, didn’t see your answer before.)
I think people have been editing these relations on the assumption that they represent physical forests. Nobody should use them for KKL administration data - they will likely be very inaccurate now.