Don't even remember doing this area, if something is strange from 4 years ago fix it to match what exists now or revert the changeset. If it's an import it then it would just be me mistakenly not logging into my import account but there was a large import in Texas a few years back.

Ah but this data I have created myself using tools in the same way as your example so how is it an import?

Look at other vegetation areas and you will see discontinuity, holes, and areas that claim a vegetation but don't have it as well. Georgia has been mentioned and I've seen it in others too. I looked at different vegetation areas on the map prior to doing this changeset to see if it stood up to others. I believe this still comes down to personal preference. Hopefully the chap who did the revert went back and checked to make sure it didn't leave artifacts since I had made corrections and edits in subsequent changesets.

From what I can see of this process is a few of you on slack decided you did not like the edit. You failed to reach out to the broader community through the mailing list to reach a consensus. Then when challenged backup was called to make it seem like in the comments there was a consensus and one person did a revert under his own authority. DWG has been on this changeset before and they didn't do a revert so either they didn't deem it important or they found some logic in my defense. DWG should have been the one to do a revert but that didn't work so here we are. What's done is done and no manner of explanation or excuse will make this 'process' seem to be anything else than at best 5-10 people railroading over a local editor from hundreds of miles away.

Again by that definition of an outside data source being an import I could use a handheld gps and bring those points into JOSM and that would be considered an import.
It seems that there isn't a very defined nature to the process which is a shame.
I asked how many people, what authority, and what percentage of the whole. Were there any Texans? Anybody from remotely close to the area? This sounds like some people on slack (not even the mailing list) decided and that was that. Doesn't exactly seem like a very good process especially since there are other areas that match your concerns that aren't being reverted.

Just to satisfy my curiosity under what authority did you revert my dataset, how many people on slack agreed, and what percentage of total mappers would this consensus constitute if it was only a slack discussion used as your authority? I would also point out that the import guidelines need some updating with firmer definitions as one could construe uploading data collected in Vespucci as an import based on the definitions provided.

I apologize for typos, my baby is trying to type for me.

The powers that be that I referenced is the DWG, especially since someone from the DWG had commented here. As for personal aesthetic that comment was directed at large since many comments have been about how it looks rather than any other objective criteria. My comment about professionals is a rebuttal to your low quality comments, I'm sure OSM could care less who does what but when making a decision about quality and accuracy I'm sure knowing it's a professional and authoritative original source has merit and since you alone do not speak for OSM I'm sure others in the decision making might care.

I know I'm not wholly objective in this case because it is my edit and work but I'm not sure you are being objective anymore because any argument against your position continues to bring out more unsubstantiated claims meaning emotion rather than objectivity. This time it is a claim of copyright infringement which I'm sure you know is not applicable in this case. Data released by the federal government in the United States automatically is part of the public domain and is not copyrighted therefore any derivative of thar days is not subject to copyright violations.

MikeN if that is what is decided by the DWG or a community consensus (more than a couple of people) then feel free to revert the changeset. I have defended my edits and will disagree with the decision but again I'm adult and I'm not going to throw a fit or do anything rash or detrimental to the map. I honestly thought after discussing it with another DWG member months ago they had removed it. I just don't stand by random individuals deciding they don't like something and reverting it.

It's a straw man to say that I have said someone had to have been to a place to map it. I have never said such a thing and it is disingenuous to say that I have. What I have said is that it is the practice of OSM to give precedent to those who are more local than those who are far away.

As for your water color analogy it fails because it is you arbitrarily painting rather than using time tested remote sensing practices to derive land cover. Such a statement isn't made out of a objective opinion but is emotional rebuttal unconnected with reality.

As for it being an import I stand by my statement that since the data has been derived by me through geoprocessing and editing it is not an import any more than mass edits made from a large gps file or hand drawn map. If it is the case that someone from DWG disagrees with that and chooses to revert it then I disagree with their decision but I'm not going to redo this or decide to start some sort of flame/edit/revert war, I'm an adult and am fully capable of disagreeing without engaging in logical fallacies, ad hominem, or general childish behavior.

I think most of the problem comes from everyone assuming this should look like trees on a satellite, it's scrub and not always easy to see in aerials and it's heavier in some years than others. It's not like the forests in Missouri and other places that also have discontinuity but are much easier to pick out because they have tall trees. Vegetation can sometimes blend into the ground depending on climate and region.

In any case what the powers that be decide to do is their purview, I do object to reversion (especially for someone's personal aesthetic preference) and if it must be done I would prefer it be done for the correct reasons and by someone in authority. If the DWG feels it needs to go then they need to pull the trigger and get it done. All I was trying to do was add vegetation to areas that look devoid of it in areas I am attached to by family, history, and property.

I don't think anyone who has commented thus far has ever even been to this county so their ability to claim what is there or not is questionable at best. The dataset I derived this data from uses commonly accepted remote sensing practices to ascertain land cover. To take issue with it is to take issue with the science that backs that. Prior to all the fuss I had planned on doing many of the neighboring counties so it doesn't look like an anomaly in the state but I don't want to put in the time and effort to make datasets when several people from hundreds if not thousands of miles away feel they can tell what is on the ground better than someone who travels often to this area to visit family. I think people are a little to skippy with the urge to use revert when the general practice of the map is not to make such broad changes to areas that are remote from your own location. To each their own I'm done fighting over what a select few think the map ought to be and their tilting at the windmills of acceptable practices in science.

Probably because the discussion hasn't lead to a confident conclusion. If a member of the DWG dropped it then it should probably be left alone by others who are not in geographic proximity to the area as well but feel free to bump it up the chain and we will see what happens.

Yeah I don't mind taking care of it later, but honestly the changeset says it's part of the Microsoft buildings import, if you see a mistake it's probably just something missed so feel free to fix it.

Let's do a hypothetical to see why you believe this is an import. Let's say I go to a museum and while there I notice a map on display showing historical trails between the California Missions that was made during the time of St. Junipero Serra. Now I take a high resolution photo of this map. I bring that home and georeference it in QGIS, rasterize it, extract the trail cells, convert them to linestrings, smooth and simplify them, bring that file into JOSM, check them against the photo of the map that they are generally in the right place and have never been mapped before, tag them and then upload the changeset. Would you consider that an import? If so one could argue that almost any new data added to the map is an import. How would that be different in the case of this changeset?

I created the data using GIS processing tools, I hand edited in JOSM, there is no license to public domain maps. It is no different than having a friend collect GPS points, processing them in other software, and then loading them into JOSM and fine tuning the data through hand edits. You have made up your mind that you are going to let it be reverted on the subjective grounds laid forth by others so just do it and be done with it. Just know these heavy handed approaches by people with no relation with the area will make it harder to recruit local mappers.

Again by the definitions and rules of imports as I have read them and as have been spoken about in other groups I still don't feel this is an import based on those definitions. You may disagree and since you sit on the DWG what you do is your decision. I honestly am at the point where you and the other natural area editors who have complained about this method (again a method I have used and seen used in professional GIS work) have made me stop caring about mapping an area that is important to my family and my family's heritage. All from people who live many hundreds of miles away.

I love this idea that proven processes of land classification made by professionals in the field are somehow suspect and erroneous to the self appointed gate keepers of the map or their niche interests.

Hi Andy,

I don't feel that this qualifies as an import due to how removed it is from the source material, generally speaking imports don't go through transitions except those necessary for it to be recognized by the map (tags, relations, sometimes simplification). As for a license there isn't one because the work is a derivative of public domain data. So there is no need for license issues. As for your Mapbox satellite idea we do know that these types of area are generalizations of underlying vegetation right? I mean not every single spot in a forest has a tree right? It's a basic geographical principle though that areas adjacent to others have similar properties correct? What this has come down to is some popular people, probably some friends of yours, have taken a subjective taste issue with this and none of them live near the area in question or have any connection to it. Essentially you are enforcing someone's personal opinion on the changeset rather than any objective criteria. If that's the case, as the above comments have readily admitted, then feel free to revert it but just admit the reason your are doing it is subjective rather than try to cloak it in some form of official rule that we know doesn't really exist. It's this kind of attitude from fellow mappers that discourages people from making edits and contributing in the long run to the map.

Near as I can tell Jersey is a long ways away from Coke County Texas

It's not copied but through GIS processes it is derived from a public domain map which is 100% compatible because it has no license whatsoever. Secondly this is a way of deriving land cover that is used in many maps by professionals. Thirdly you should not be reverting something without having a thorough conversation with the person who made the edit and you should take into account whether or not you are local enough to make that call. Cool your jets and mind your own area of the map

It not only has inroads in Germany it also has branches in the UK, Ukraine, Canada, and the Baltic States. They have been responsible for at least 7 murders one of which was a openly gay Jew who was targeted, kidnapped, and stabbed over 20 times. Atomwaffen has also made threats against the Royal Family in the UK, politicians in Germany, and most recently members planned mass shooting in Virginia. While it might have once had a different meaning one should rethink such a name in an open and collaborative environment such as OSM as it could easily scare away or intimidate mappers that belong to groups that are vulnerable to the violence and hate that atomwaffen espouses.

Cheers.

It's not so I didn't. Might want to change your username, that group is pretty violent and intolerant, you wouldn't want to be confused with a white supremacist group.

True but as TNRIS is where I got it and they posted the license I give them the credit.