Re: [Talk-ca] Municipal boundaries

[Pierre Béland]

Bonjour John
Les limites administratives sont disponibles à partir de Geobase pour la 
Saskatchewan, le Manitoba, l’Ontario, le Québec, le Nouveau-Brunswick, le 
Yukon, le Territoire du Nord-Ouest et le Nunavut.voir 
http://ouvert.canada.ca/data/fr/dataset/36c8b829-d49c-4207-9146-057f9facf8f0

Ce travail doit évidemment être coordonné par la communauté et bien planifié 
pour éviter les nombreuses embuches. Des contributeurs ayant l'expérience de 
l'édition de telles limites administratives doivent être étroitement associés.
Il y a aussi des particularités pour chaque province. Au Québec par exemple, 
les municipalités sont hiérarchisées selon les MRC et régions administratives 
et il faut aussi créer les limites pour ces niveaux administratifs. Il faut 
établir quelle méthode utiliser pour regrouper les municipalités dans une 
relation décrivant un territoire de niveau supérieur tel que MRC ou région 
administrative.
Il faut aussi avancer prudemment et aligner les données avec les limites de 
chaque province. Il faut aussi identifier les limites déja ajoutées pour 
certaines municipalités et les modifier sans faire de dégat!
  
Pierre 


  De : john whelan <jwhelan0...@gmail.com>
 À : Stewart C. Russell <scr...@gmail.com> 
Cc : Talk-CA OpenStreetMap <talk-ca@openstreetmap.org>
 Envoyé le : jeudi 9 mars 2017 9h09
 Objet : Re: [Talk-ca] Municipal boundaries
   
and just to add to the confusion Canada Post has its own set of rules.  For 
example my official Canada Post address is Orleans yet no such municipality or 
town has ever existed.  There are other examples of Canada Post giving areas 
names.

Cheerio John
   ___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Municipal boundaries

[Kevin Farrugia]

Canada Post can be ignored, luckily, when it comes to municipal boundaries.
statscan's municipal boundaries are handy because it's country-wide and we
have a license agreement with them.

I don't think the boundaries with be an import in the true sense, more of a
guide that allows us to more easily create the boundaries.

In Ontario anyways boundaries usually follow roads and rivers so it's a
case of adding these to a boundary relation with the assistance of StatsCan
data.

On Mar 9, 2017 9:14 AM, "john whelan"  wrote:

> and just to add to the confusion Canada Post has its own set of rules.
> For example my official Canada Post address is Orleans yet no such
> municipality or town has ever existed.  There are other examples of Canada
> Post giving areas names.
>
> Cheerio John
>
> On 9 March 2017 at 08:55, Stewart C. Russell  wrote:
>
>> Hi Kevin -
>>
>> > CSDs are legal boundaries - I.e. the legal boundary of a lower tier
>> > municipality.
>>
>> I was a bit confused by terminology - I thought that Bjenk was referring
>> to LCTs. The one I live in looks like this:
>>
>> https://gist.github.com/scruss/e4778dfc3a0ea5261581e688c4332c93
>>
>> It's bounded by Eglinton Ave East, the Stouffville rail line, Corvette
>> Ave, Kennedy Rd, St Clair Ave East, the old GECO rail spur, and finally
>> Kennedy Rd again.
>>
>> There's nothing to say that you're in this area (ward?), and as it's
>> designated by boundary ways, any import relation would have to map on to
>> the existing ways in OSM, and not StatCan's data. Even though many of
>> our ways are based on earlier imports of Federal data, there isn't a
>> perfect match. To StatCan, Eglinton Ave East is just a line. To us, it's
>> multiple separated ways.
>>
>> I don't believe that these divisions belong in OSM, even although they
>> have legal definition for census use.
>>
>>  Stewart
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-ca mailing list
>> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>
>
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Municipal boundaries

[john whelan]

and just to add to the confusion Canada Post has its own set of rules.  For
example my official Canada Post address is Orleans yet no such municipality
or town has ever existed.  There are other examples of Canada Post giving
areas names.

Cheerio John

On 9 March 2017 at 08:55, Stewart C. Russell  wrote:

> Hi Kevin -
>
> > CSDs are legal boundaries - I.e. the legal boundary of a lower tier
> > municipality.
>
> I was a bit confused by terminology - I thought that Bjenk was referring
> to LCTs. The one I live in looks like this:
>
> https://gist.github.com/scruss/e4778dfc3a0ea5261581e688c4332c93
>
> It's bounded by Eglinton Ave East, the Stouffville rail line, Corvette
> Ave, Kennedy Rd, St Clair Ave East, the old GECO rail spur, and finally
> Kennedy Rd again.
>
> There's nothing to say that you're in this area (ward?), and as it's
> designated by boundary ways, any import relation would have to map on to
> the existing ways in OSM, and not StatCan's data. Even though many of
> our ways are based on earlier imports of Federal data, there isn't a
> perfect match. To StatCan, Eglinton Ave East is just a line. To us, it's
> multiple separated ways.
>
> I don't believe that these divisions belong in OSM, even although they
> have legal definition for census use.
>
>  Stewart
>
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Municipal boundaries

[Stewart C. Russell]

Hi Kevin -

> CSDs are legal boundaries - I.e. the legal boundary of a lower tier
> municipality.

I was a bit confused by terminology - I thought that Bjenk was referring
to LCTs. The one I live in looks like this:

https://gist.github.com/scruss/e4778dfc3a0ea5261581e688c4332c93

It's bounded by Eglinton Ave East, the Stouffville rail line, Corvette
Ave, Kennedy Rd, St Clair Ave East, the old GECO rail spur, and finally
Kennedy Rd again.

There's nothing to say that you're in this area (ward?), and as it's
designated by boundary ways, any import relation would have to map on to
the existing ways in OSM, and not StatCan's data. Even though many of
our ways are based on earlier imports of Federal data, there isn't a
perfect match. To StatCan, Eglinton Ave East is just a line. To us, it's
multiple separated ways.

I don't believe that these divisions belong in OSM, even although they
have legal definition for census use.

 Stewart

___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Municipal boundaries

[Denis Carriere]

+1 Kevin again :)

Boundaries are a MUST if ever you want better geocoding.

We just need to deconflict the boundaries that are different from StatsCan
& the local municipalities (these boundaries should be "authoritative" if
they exist).

Remember, not all townships have a full GIS team working for them, there's
going to be many areas in Canada that StatsCan does have the "best" data.

*~~*
*Denis Carriere*
*GIS Software & Systems Specialist*

On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 1:38 PM, kevinfarrugia <kevinfarru...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Sorry JP, just talking from my experience in Ontario where they generally
> (at least in Southern Ontario) follow legal boundaries.
>
> In the end, whoever does it will need to have knowledge of the area and
> how boundaries work in that province/locality, but boundaries are
> definitely important for geocoding and analysis and would remove the need
> for extremely redundant addr tags that are used for cities.
>
>
> Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.
>
>  Original message 
> From: "J.P. Kirby" <webmas...@the506.com>
> Date: 2017-03-07 1:21 PM (GMT-05:00)
> To: James <james2...@gmail.com>
> Cc: Talk-CA OpenStreetMap <talk-ca@openstreetmap.org>
> Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Municipal boundaries
>
> And even then, not all CSDs are municipalities. In Nova Scotia for
> instance they have "county subdivisions" which have no legal standing at
> all and are just StatsCan creations.
>
> I'd suggest boundaries of actual municipalities are worthy of being added
> into OSM, but not all CSDs fit that bill.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Mar 7, 2017, at 2:10 PM, James <james2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> CSDs are suppose to represent city/town limits (observable as usually
> there's a sign that says Welcome to X or Sorry to see you leave X), but
> they have been rounded off to look nice and may not reflect what it is in
> reality
>
> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 1:05 PM, Stewart C. Russell <scr...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 2017-03-07 10:36 AM, Bjenk Ellefsen wrote:
>> >
>> > … Any more thoughts?
>>
>> If you're planning to import/add abstract statistical boundaries, rather
>> than those defined by municipal boundaries, then I'd suggest that they
>> don't belong in OSM.
>>
>>  “Contributions to OpenStreetmap should be:
>>1. Truthful - means that you cannot contribute something you have
>> invented.
>>2. Legal - means that you don't copy copyrighted data without
>> permission.
>>3. Verifiable - means that others can go there and see for
>> themselves if your data is correct.
>>4. Relevant - means that you have to use tags that make clear to
>> others how to re-use the data
>>
>>   When in doubt, also consider the "on the ground rule": map the world
>>   as it can be observed by someone physically there.”
>>
>>  — How We Map <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/How_We_Map>
>>
>> Unless CSDs are physically observable, they are too abstract for OSM.
>>
>>  Stewart
>
>
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>
>
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Municipal boundaries

[kevinfarrugia]

Sorry JP, just talking from my experience in Ontario where they generally (at 
least in Southern Ontario) follow legal boundaries. 
In the end, whoever does it will need to have knowledge of the area and how 
boundaries work in that province/locality, but boundaries are definitely 
important for geocoding and analysis and would remove the need for extremely 
redundant addr tags that are used for cities.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.
 Original message From: "J.P. Kirby" <webmas...@the506.com> 
Date: 2017-03-07  1:21 PM  (GMT-05:00) To: James <james2...@gmail.com> Cc: 
Talk-CA OpenStreetMap <talk-ca@openstreetmap.org> Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] 
Municipal boundaries 
And even then, not all CSDs are municipalities. In Nova Scotia for instance 
they have "county subdivisions" which have no legal standing at all and are 
just StatsCan creations.
I'd suggest boundaries of actual municipalities are worthy of being added into 
OSM, but not all CSDs fit that bill.

Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 7, 2017, at 2:10 PM, James <james2...@gmail.com> wrote:

CSDs are suppose to represent city/town limits (observable as usually there's a 
sign that says Welcome to X or Sorry to see you leave X), but they have been 
rounded off to look nice and may not reflect what it is in reality

On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 1:05 PM, Stewart C. Russell <scr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2017-03-07 10:36 AM, Bjenk Ellefsen wrote:

>

> … Any more thoughts?



If you're planning to import/add abstract statistical boundaries, rather

than those defined by municipal boundaries, then I'd suggest that they

don't belong in OSM.



 “Contributions to OpenStreetmap should be:

   1. Truthful - means that you cannot contribute something you have

    invented.

   2. Legal - means that you don't copy copyrighted data without

    permission.

   3. Verifiable - means that others can go there and see for

    themselves if your data is correct.

   4. Relevant - means that you have to use tags that make clear to

    others how to re-use the data



  When in doubt, also consider the "on the ground rule": map the world

  as it can be observed by someone physically there.”



 — How We Map <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/How_We_Map>



Unless CSDs are physically observable, they are too abstract for OSM.



 Stewart___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Municipal boundaries

[Bjenk Ellefsen]

cipal boundaries are the 
>>>>>>> CSDs. At least, as far as I know, this is the standard geography. When 
>>>>>>> referring to actual city limits, which geographical classification is 
>>>>>>> it referring to?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Sorry for the questions, I am trying to understand what is the 
>>>>>>> classification used if its not the CSDs.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 9:11 AM, James <james2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Bernie, I've also noticed that StatsCan boundaries seem to be a 
>>>>>>>> generalization of an area vs the actual city limits
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 9:02 AM, Bernie Connors 
>>>>>>>>> <berniejconn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Bjenk,
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>   In NB there are issues with some census boundaries not matching 
>>>>>>>>> with our administrative boundaries. The issue I am aware of was with 
>>>>>>>>> the county boundaries. The census data that is analogous to our 
>>>>>>>>> county boundaries included some significant deviations to prevent a 
>>>>>>>>> municipality from being bisected by a county boundary. Please be 
>>>>>>>>> careful that there is not a similar issue with the CSD boundaries. NB 
>>>>>>>>> municipal boundaries can be downloaded from the GeoNB Data Catalogue 
>>>>>>>>> For comparison to the CSD data. 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Bernie.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Bell network.
>>>>>>>>> From: Bjenk Ellefsen
>>>>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, March 7, 2017 9:51 AM
>>>>>>>>> To: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
>>>>>>>>> Subject: [Talk-ca] Municipal boundaries
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Hello, 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Municipal boundaries correspond to census subdivisions (CSD). I have 
>>>>>>>>> seen that many municipalities do not have a boundary yet. Is it ok if 
>>>>>>>>> I start adding some boundaries based on CSDs? Having the boundaries 
>>>>>>>>> is important to make extractions and analysis at the municipal level.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Bjenk
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> ___
>>>>>>>>> Talk-ca mailing list
>>>>>>>>> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
>>>>>>>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>>> 外に遊びに行こう！
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>> 外に遊びに行こう！
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> ___
>>>>>> Talk-ca mailing list
>>>>>> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
>>>>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> -- 
>>>> 外に遊びに行こう！
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> 外に遊びに行こう！
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> Talk-ca mailing list
>> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>> 
> 
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Municipal boundaries

[J.P. Kirby]

And even then, not all CSDs are municipalities. In Nova Scotia for instance 
they have "county subdivisions" which have no legal standing at all and are 
just StatsCan creations.

I'd suggest boundaries of actual municipalities are worthy of being added into 
OSM, but not all CSDs fit that bill.

Sent from my iPhone

> On Mar 7, 2017, at 2:10 PM, James  wrote:
> 
> CSDs are suppose to represent city/town limits (observable as usually there's 
> a sign that says Welcome to X or Sorry to see you leave X), but they have 
> been rounded off to look nice and may not reflect what it is in reality
> 
>> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 1:05 PM, Stewart C. Russell  wrote:
>> On 2017-03-07 10:36 AM, Bjenk Ellefsen wrote:
>> >
>> > … Any more thoughts?
>> 
>> If you're planning to import/add abstract statistical boundaries, rather
>> than those defined by municipal boundaries, then I'd suggest that they
>> don't belong in OSM.
>> 
>>  “Contributions to OpenStreetmap should be:
>>1. Truthful - means that you cannot contribute something you have
>> invented.
>>2. Legal - means that you don't copy copyrighted data without
>> permission.
>>3. Verifiable - means that others can go there and see for
>> themselves if your data is correct.
>>4. Relevant - means that you have to use tags that make clear to
>> others how to re-use the data
>> 
>>   When in doubt, also consider the "on the ground rule": map the world
>>   as it can be observed by someone physically there.”
>> 
>>  — How We Map 
>> 
>> Unless CSDs are physically observable, they are too abstract for OSM.
>> 
>>  Stewart
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Municipal boundaries

[kevinfarrugia]

Hey Stewart,
CSDs are legal boundaries - I.e. the legal boundary of a lower tier 
municipality.
CSD = city/town/township

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.
 Original message From: "Stewart C. Russell" <scr...@gmail.com> 
Date: 2017-03-07  1:05 PM  (GMT-05:00) To: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org Subject: 
Re: [Talk-ca] Municipal boundaries 
On 2017-03-07 10:36 AM, Bjenk Ellefsen wrote:
> 
> … Any more thoughts?

If you're planning to import/add abstract statistical boundaries, rather
than those defined by municipal boundaries, then I'd suggest that they
don't belong in OSM.

 “Contributions to OpenStreetmap should be:
   1. Truthful - means that you cannot contribute something you have
    invented.
   2. Legal - means that you don't copy copyrighted data without
    permission.
   3. Verifiable - means that others can go there and see for
    themselves if your data is correct.
   4. Relevant - means that you have to use tags that make clear to
    others how to re-use the data

  When in doubt, also consider the "on the ground rule": map the world
  as it can be observed by someone physically there.”

 — How We Map <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/How_We_Map>

Unless CSDs are physically observable, they are too abstract for OSM.

 Stewart


___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Municipal boundaries

[James]

CSDs are suppose to represent city/town limits (observable as usually
there's a sign that says Welcome to X or Sorry to see you leave X), but
they have been rounded off to look nice and may not reflect what it is in
reality

On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 1:05 PM, Stewart C. Russell  wrote:

> On 2017-03-07 10:36 AM, Bjenk Ellefsen wrote:
> >
> > … Any more thoughts?
>
> If you're planning to import/add abstract statistical boundaries, rather
> than those defined by municipal boundaries, then I'd suggest that they
> don't belong in OSM.
>
>  “Contributions to OpenStreetmap should be:
>1. Truthful - means that you cannot contribute something you have
> invented.
>2. Legal - means that you don't copy copyrighted data without
> permission.
>3. Verifiable - means that others can go there and see for
> themselves if your data is correct.
>4. Relevant - means that you have to use tags that make clear to
> others how to re-use the data
>
>   When in doubt, also consider the "on the ground rule": map the world
>   as it can be observed by someone physically there.”
>
>  — How We Map 
>
> Unless CSDs are physically observable, they are too abstract for OSM.
>
>  Stewart
>
>
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>



-- 
外に遊びに行こう！
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Municipal boundaries

[Stewart C. Russell]

On 2017-03-07 10:36 AM, Bjenk Ellefsen wrote:
> 
> … Any more thoughts?

If you're planning to import/add abstract statistical boundaries, rather
than those defined by municipal boundaries, then I'd suggest that they
don't belong in OSM.

 “Contributions to OpenStreetmap should be:
   1. Truthful - means that you cannot contribute something you have
invented.
   2. Legal - means that you don't copy copyrighted data without
permission.
   3. Verifiable - means that others can go there and see for
themselves if your data is correct.
   4. Relevant - means that you have to use tags that make clear to
others how to re-use the data

  When in doubt, also consider the "on the ground rule": map the world
  as it can be observed by someone physically there.”

 — How We Map 

Unless CSDs are physically observable, they are too abstract for OSM.

 Stewart


___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Municipal boundaries

[Denis Carriere]

gt; Bernie, I've also noticed that StatsCan boundaries seem to be a
>>>>>>> generalization of an area vs the actual city limits
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 9:02 AM, Bernie Connors <
>>>>>>> berniejconn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Bjenk,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>   In NB there are issues with some census boundaries not
>>>>>>>> matching with our administrative boundaries. The issue I am aware of 
>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>> with the county boundaries. The census data that is analogous to our 
>>>>>>>> county
>>>>>>>> boundaries included some significant deviations to prevent a 
>>>>>>>> municipality
>>>>>>>> from being bisected by a county boundary. Please be careful that there 
>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>> not a similar issue with the CSD boundaries. NB municipal boundaries 
>>>>>>>> can be
>>>>>>>> downloaded from the GeoNB Data Catalogue For comparison to the CSD 
>>>>>>>> data.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Bernie.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Bell network.
>>>>>>>> *From: *Bjenk Ellefsen
>>>>>>>> *Sent: *Tuesday, March 7, 2017 9:51 AM
>>>>>>>> *To: *talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
>>>>>>>> *Subject: *[Talk-ca] Municipal boundaries
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Municipal boundaries correspond to census subdivisions (CSD). I
>>>>>>>> have seen that many municipalities do not have a boundary yet. Is it 
>>>>>>>> ok if
>>>>>>>> I start adding some boundaries based on CSDs? Having the boundaries is
>>>>>>>> important to make extractions and analysis at the municipal level.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Bjenk
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ___
>>>>>>>> Talk-ca mailing list
>>>>>>>> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
>>>>>>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> 外に遊びに行こう！
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> 外に遊びに行こう！
>>>>>
>>>>> ___
>>>>> Talk-ca mailing list
>>>>> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
>>>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> 外に遊びに行こう！
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> 外に遊びに行こう！
>>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>
>
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Municipal boundaries

[Bjenk Ellefsen]

James, it looks to me those differences are the result of a simplification
applied on the processing side.

And I also agree that good enough is usually more problems down the road.
We should adopt a standard. The only one I know of for the country is the
SGC and Paul is pointing out to an example of how Provinces have defined
boundaries.

We probably should look at a standard though if we wish to produce OSM
analysis that is consistent and reproducible. The problem I foresee with
the use of different and variable boundaries is that it will make OSM data
use inconsistent and not accurate.

What I understand form our discussion is that I should do more research on
what provinces are using and document this before doing anything and report
here. Thanks everyone for the feedback! Any more thoughts?





On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 10:11 AM, James <james2...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Quebec's Open Data portal just points to the city portals which each have
> their own license(usually CC-BY)
>
> https://www.donneesquebec.ca/fr/
>
> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 9:42 AM, James <james2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> We also have to think if we are going with "good enough" when we want
>> better the work that will be doubled to make the boundaries better.
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 9:38 AM, Paul Ramsey <pram...@cleverelephant.ca>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Municipalities are creatures of the provinces, the most likely source of
>>> complete, correct municipal boundaries will be the provincial government,
>>> though each municipality will generally know theirs (and sometimes disagree
>>> with neighbours, hence the utility of using a provincial file if available).
>>>
>>> Matching of CSDs with municipal boundaries is something StatsCan will
>>> attempt to achieve, but it's by no means a guarantee. If the goal is "good
>>> enough", CSDs are good enough. If the goal is to reflect reality,
>>> provincial data will always be preferable.
>>>
>>> e.g. https://catalogue.data.gov.bc.ca/dataset/municipalities
>>> -legally-defined-administrative-areas-of-bc
>>>
>>> P
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 6:31 AM, James <james2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In purple/black CSD 2016, in gold Gatineau's city limits from their
>>>> open data portal:
>>>> http://i.imgur.com/undefined.png
>>>>
>>>> The CSDs do not match up with actual city bounds
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 9:20 AM, Bjenk Ellefsen <
>>>> bjenk.ellef...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Just to make sure we are talking about the same thing: Census
>>>>> Divisions are higher level and more regional boundaries. CSDs are 
>>>>> municipal
>>>>> boundaries (in OSM, level 8).  http://www.statcan.gc.ca/eng/s
>>>>> ubjects/standard/sgc/2011/sgc-intro
>>>>>
>>>>> Can you give me an example of city limits that don't match a CSD or is
>>>>> not in the SGC? Usually, the standard for municipal boundaries are the
>>>>> CSDs. At least, as far as I know, this is the standard geography. When
>>>>> referring to actual city limits, which geographical classification is it
>>>>> referring to?
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry for the questions, I am trying to understand what is the
>>>>> classification used if its not the CSDs.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 9:11 AM, James <james2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Bernie, I've also noticed that StatsCan boundaries seem to be a
>>>>>> generalization of an area vs the actual city limits
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 9:02 AM, Bernie Connors <
>>>>>> berniejconn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bjenk,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   In NB there are issues with some census boundaries not
>>>>>>> matching with our administrative boundaries. The issue I am aware of was
>>>>>>> with the county boundaries. The census data that is analogous to our 
>>>>>>> county
>>>>>>> boundaries included some significant deviations to prevent a 
>>>>>>> municipality
>>>>>>> from being bisected by a county boundary. Please be careful that there 
>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>> not a similar issue with the CSD boundaries. NB municipal b

Re: [Talk-ca] Municipal boundaries

[James]

Quebec's Open Data portal just points to the city portals which each have
their own license(usually CC-BY)

https://www.donneesquebec.ca/fr/

On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 9:42 AM, James <james2...@gmail.com> wrote:

> We also have to think if we are going with "good enough" when we want
> better the work that will be doubled to make the boundaries better.
>
> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 9:38 AM, Paul Ramsey <pram...@cleverelephant.ca>
> wrote:
>
>> Municipalities are creatures of the provinces, the most likely source of
>> complete, correct municipal boundaries will be the provincial government,
>> though each municipality will generally know theirs (and sometimes disagree
>> with neighbours, hence the utility of using a provincial file if available).
>>
>> Matching of CSDs with municipal boundaries is something StatsCan will
>> attempt to achieve, but it's by no means a guarantee. If the goal is "good
>> enough", CSDs are good enough. If the goal is to reflect reality,
>> provincial data will always be preferable.
>>
>> e.g. https://catalogue.data.gov.bc.ca/dataset/municipalities
>> -legally-defined-administrative-areas-of-bc
>>
>> P
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 6:31 AM, James <james2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> In purple/black CSD 2016, in gold Gatineau's city limits from their open
>>> data portal:
>>> http://i.imgur.com/undefined.png
>>>
>>> The CSDs do not match up with actual city bounds
>>>
>>> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 9:20 AM, Bjenk Ellefsen <bjenk.ellef...@gmail.com
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Just to make sure we are talking about the same thing: Census Divisions
>>>> are higher level and more regional boundaries. CSDs are municipal
>>>> boundaries (in OSM, level 8).  http://www.statcan.gc.ca/eng/s
>>>> ubjects/standard/sgc/2011/sgc-intro
>>>>
>>>> Can you give me an example of city limits that don't match a CSD or is
>>>> not in the SGC? Usually, the standard for municipal boundaries are the
>>>> CSDs. At least, as far as I know, this is the standard geography. When
>>>> referring to actual city limits, which geographical classification is it
>>>> referring to?
>>>>
>>>> Sorry for the questions, I am trying to understand what is the
>>>> classification used if its not the CSDs.
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 9:11 AM, James <james2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Bernie, I've also noticed that StatsCan boundaries seem to be a
>>>>> generalization of an area vs the actual city limits
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 9:02 AM, Bernie Connors <
>>>>> berniejconn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Bjenk,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   In NB there are issues with some census boundaries not matching
>>>>>> with our administrative boundaries. The issue I am aware of was with the
>>>>>> county boundaries. The census data that is analogous to our county
>>>>>> boundaries included some significant deviations to prevent a municipality
>>>>>> from being bisected by a county boundary. Please be careful that there is
>>>>>> not a similar issue with the CSD boundaries. NB municipal boundaries can 
>>>>>> be
>>>>>> downloaded from the GeoNB Data Catalogue For comparison to the CSD data.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bernie.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Bell network.
>>>>>> *From: *Bjenk Ellefsen
>>>>>> *Sent: *Tuesday, March 7, 2017 9:51 AM
>>>>>> *To: *talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
>>>>>> *Subject: *[Talk-ca] Municipal boundaries
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Municipal boundaries correspond to census subdivisions (CSD). I have
>>>>>> seen that many municipalities do not have a boundary yet. Is it ok if I
>>>>>> start adding some boundaries based on CSDs? Having the boundaries is
>>>>>> important to make extractions and analysis at the municipal level.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bjenk
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ___
>>>>>> Talk-ca mailing list
>>>>>> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
>>>>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> 外に遊びに行こう！
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> 外に遊びに行こう！
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Talk-ca mailing list
>>> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
> 外に遊びに行こう！
>



-- 
外に遊びに行こう！
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Municipal boundaries

[James]

We also have to think if we are going with "good enough" when we want
better the work that will be doubled to make the boundaries better.

On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 9:38 AM, Paul Ramsey <pram...@cleverelephant.ca>
wrote:

> Municipalities are creatures of the provinces, the most likely source of
> complete, correct municipal boundaries will be the provincial government,
> though each municipality will generally know theirs (and sometimes disagree
> with neighbours, hence the utility of using a provincial file if available).
>
> Matching of CSDs with municipal boundaries is something StatsCan will
> attempt to achieve, but it's by no means a guarantee. If the goal is "good
> enough", CSDs are good enough. If the goal is to reflect reality,
> provincial data will always be preferable.
>
> e.g. https://catalogue.data.gov.bc.ca/dataset/municipalities-legally-
> defined-administrative-areas-of-bc
>
> P
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 6:31 AM, James <james2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> In purple/black CSD 2016, in gold Gatineau's city limits from their open
>> data portal:
>> http://i.imgur.com/undefined.png
>>
>> The CSDs do not match up with actual city bounds
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 9:20 AM, Bjenk Ellefsen <bjenk.ellef...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Just to make sure we are talking about the same thing: Census Divisions
>>> are higher level and more regional boundaries. CSDs are municipal
>>> boundaries (in OSM, level 8).  http://www.statcan.gc.ca/eng/s
>>> ubjects/standard/sgc/2011/sgc-intro
>>>
>>> Can you give me an example of city limits that don't match a CSD or is
>>> not in the SGC? Usually, the standard for municipal boundaries are the
>>> CSDs. At least, as far as I know, this is the standard geography. When
>>> referring to actual city limits, which geographical classification is it
>>> referring to?
>>>
>>> Sorry for the questions, I am trying to understand what is the
>>> classification used if its not the CSDs.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 9:11 AM, James <james2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Bernie, I've also noticed that StatsCan boundaries seem to be a
>>>> generalization of an area vs the actual city limits
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 9:02 AM, Bernie Connors <
>>>> berniejconn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Bjenk,
>>>>>
>>>>>   In NB there are issues with some census boundaries not matching
>>>>> with our administrative boundaries. The issue I am aware of was with the
>>>>> county boundaries. The census data that is analogous to our county
>>>>> boundaries included some significant deviations to prevent a municipality
>>>>> from being bisected by a county boundary. Please be careful that there is
>>>>> not a similar issue with the CSD boundaries. NB municipal boundaries can 
>>>>> be
>>>>> downloaded from the GeoNB Data Catalogue For comparison to the CSD data.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bernie.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Bell network.
>>>>> *From: *Bjenk Ellefsen
>>>>> *Sent: *Tuesday, March 7, 2017 9:51 AM
>>>>> *To: *talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
>>>>> *Subject: *[Talk-ca] Municipal boundaries
>>>>>
>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>
>>>>> Municipal boundaries correspond to census subdivisions (CSD). I have
>>>>> seen that many municipalities do not have a boundary yet. Is it ok if I
>>>>> start adding some boundaries based on CSDs? Having the boundaries is
>>>>> important to make extractions and analysis at the municipal level.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bjenk
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ___
>>>>> Talk-ca mailing list
>>>>> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
>>>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> 外に遊びに行こう！
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> 外に遊びに行こう！
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-ca mailing list
>> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>>
>>
>


-- 
外に遊びに行こう！
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Municipal boundaries

[Paul Ramsey]

Municipalities are creatures of the provinces, the most likely source of
complete, correct municipal boundaries will be the provincial government,
though each municipality will generally know theirs (and sometimes disagree
with neighbours, hence the utility of using a provincial file if available).

Matching of CSDs with municipal boundaries is something StatsCan will
attempt to achieve, but it's by no means a guarantee. If the goal is "good
enough", CSDs are good enough. If the goal is to reflect reality,
provincial data will always be preferable.

e.g.
https://catalogue.data.gov.bc.ca/dataset/municipalities-legally-defined-administrative-areas-of-bc

P


On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 6:31 AM, James <james2...@gmail.com> wrote:

> In purple/black CSD 2016, in gold Gatineau's city limits from their open
> data portal:
> http://i.imgur.com/undefined.png
>
> The CSDs do not match up with actual city bounds
>
> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 9:20 AM, Bjenk Ellefsen <bjenk.ellef...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Just to make sure we are talking about the same thing: Census Divisions
>> are higher level and more regional boundaries. CSDs are municipal
>> boundaries (in OSM, level 8).  http://www.statcan.gc.ca/eng/s
>> ubjects/standard/sgc/2011/sgc-intro
>>
>> Can you give me an example of city limits that don't match a CSD or is
>> not in the SGC? Usually, the standard for municipal boundaries are the
>> CSDs. At least, as far as I know, this is the standard geography. When
>> referring to actual city limits, which geographical classification is it
>> referring to?
>>
>> Sorry for the questions, I am trying to understand what is the
>> classification used if its not the CSDs.
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 9:11 AM, James <james2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Bernie, I've also noticed that StatsCan boundaries seem to be a
>>> generalization of an area vs the actual city limits
>>>
>>> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 9:02 AM, Bernie Connors <berniejconn...@gmail.com
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Bjenk,
>>>>
>>>>   In NB there are issues with some census boundaries not matching
>>>> with our administrative boundaries. The issue I am aware of was with the
>>>> county boundaries. The census data that is analogous to our county
>>>> boundaries included some significant deviations to prevent a municipality
>>>> from being bisected by a county boundary. Please be careful that there is
>>>> not a similar issue with the CSD boundaries. NB municipal boundaries can be
>>>> downloaded from the GeoNB Data Catalogue For comparison to the CSD data.
>>>>
>>>> Bernie.
>>>>
>>>> Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Bell network.
>>>> *From: *Bjenk Ellefsen
>>>> *Sent: *Tuesday, March 7, 2017 9:51 AM
>>>> *To: *talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
>>>> *Subject: *[Talk-ca] Municipal boundaries
>>>>
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>> Municipal boundaries correspond to census subdivisions (CSD). I have
>>>> seen that many municipalities do not have a boundary yet. Is it ok if I
>>>> start adding some boundaries based on CSDs? Having the boundaries is
>>>> important to make extractions and analysis at the municipal level.
>>>>
>>>> Bjenk
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ___
>>>> Talk-ca mailing list
>>>> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
>>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> 外に遊びに行こう！
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> 外に遊びに行こう！
>
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>
>
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Municipal boundaries

[Begin Daniel]

Bjenk, I was on the same impression that CSD did (used to) not always match 
municipal limits because of their objective (census) since in some case it 
would not make sense to do so for statistical purpose…

Daniel

From: Bjenk Ellefsen [mailto:bjenk.ellef...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, 7 March, 2017 09:20
To: James
Cc: Talk-CA OpenStreetMap
Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Municipal boundaries

Just to make sure we are talking about the same thing: Census Divisions are 
higher level and more regional boundaries. CSDs are municipal boundaries (in 
OSM, level 8).  
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/eng/subjects/standard/sgc/2011/sgc-intro
Can you give me an example of city limits that don't match a CSD or is not in 
the SGC? Usually, the standard for municipal boundaries are the CSDs. At least, 
as far as I know, this is the standard geography. When referring to actual city 
limits, which geographical classification is it referring to?
Sorry for the questions, I am trying to understand what is the classification 
used if its not the CSDs.

On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 9:11 AM, James 
<james2...@gmail.com<mailto:james2...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Bernie, I've also noticed that StatsCan boundaries seem to be a generalization 
of an area vs the actual city limits

On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 9:02 AM, Bernie Connors 
<berniejconn...@gmail.com<mailto:berniejconn...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Bjenk,

  In NB there are issues with some census boundaries not matching with our 
administrative boundaries. The issue I am aware of was with the county 
boundaries. The census data that is analogous to our county boundaries included 
some significant deviations to prevent a municipality from being bisected by a 
county boundary. Please be careful that there is not a similar issue with the 
CSD boundaries. NB municipal boundaries can be downloaded from the GeoNB Data 
Catalogue For comparison to the CSD data.

Bernie.

Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Bell network.
From: Bjenk Ellefsen
Sent: Tuesday, March 7, 2017 9:51 AM
To: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-ca@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: [Talk-ca] Municipal boundaries


Hello,
Municipal boundaries correspond to census subdivisions (CSD). I have seen that 
many municipalities do not have a boundary yet. Is it ok if I start adding some 
boundaries based on CSDs? Having the boundaries is important to make 
extractions and analysis at the municipal level.
Bjenk


___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org<mailto:Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca



--
外に遊びに行こう！

___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Municipal boundaries

[James]

Sorry the image didnt copy properly:
http://i.imgur.com/QwdQDzS.png

On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 9:31 AM, James <james2...@gmail.com> wrote:

> In purple/black CSD 2016, in gold Gatineau's city limits from their open
> data portal:
> http://i.imgur.com/undefined.png
>
> The CSDs do not match up with actual city bounds
>
> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 9:20 AM, Bjenk Ellefsen <bjenk.ellef...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Just to make sure we are talking about the same thing: Census Divisions
>> are higher level and more regional boundaries. CSDs are municipal
>> boundaries (in OSM, level 8).  http://www.statcan.gc.ca/eng/s
>> ubjects/standard/sgc/2011/sgc-intro
>>
>> Can you give me an example of city limits that don't match a CSD or is
>> not in the SGC? Usually, the standard for municipal boundaries are the
>> CSDs. At least, as far as I know, this is the standard geography. When
>> referring to actual city limits, which geographical classification is it
>> referring to?
>>
>> Sorry for the questions, I am trying to understand what is the
>> classification used if its not the CSDs.
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 9:11 AM, James <james2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Bernie, I've also noticed that StatsCan boundaries seem to be a
>>> generalization of an area vs the actual city limits
>>>
>>> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 9:02 AM, Bernie Connors <berniejconn...@gmail.com
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Bjenk,
>>>>
>>>>   In NB there are issues with some census boundaries not matching
>>>> with our administrative boundaries. The issue I am aware of was with the
>>>> county boundaries. The census data that is analogous to our county
>>>> boundaries included some significant deviations to prevent a municipality
>>>> from being bisected by a county boundary. Please be careful that there is
>>>> not a similar issue with the CSD boundaries. NB municipal boundaries can be
>>>> downloaded from the GeoNB Data Catalogue For comparison to the CSD data.
>>>>
>>>> Bernie.
>>>>
>>>> Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Bell network.
>>>> *From: *Bjenk Ellefsen
>>>> *Sent: *Tuesday, March 7, 2017 9:51 AM
>>>> *To: *talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
>>>> *Subject: *[Talk-ca] Municipal boundaries
>>>>
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>> Municipal boundaries correspond to census subdivisions (CSD). I have
>>>> seen that many municipalities do not have a boundary yet. Is it ok if I
>>>> start adding some boundaries based on CSDs? Having the boundaries is
>>>> important to make extractions and analysis at the municipal level.
>>>>
>>>> Bjenk
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ___
>>>> Talk-ca mailing list
>>>> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
>>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> 外に遊びに行こう！
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> 外に遊びに行こう！
>



-- 
外に遊びに行こう！
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Municipal boundaries

[James]

In purple/black CSD 2016, in gold Gatineau's city limits from their open
data portal:
http://i.imgur.com/undefined.png

The CSDs do not match up with actual city bounds

On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 9:20 AM, Bjenk Ellefsen <bjenk.ellef...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Just to make sure we are talking about the same thing: Census Divisions
> are higher level and more regional boundaries. CSDs are municipal
> boundaries (in OSM, level 8).  http://www.statcan.gc.ca/eng/
> subjects/standard/sgc/2011/sgc-intro
>
> Can you give me an example of city limits that don't match a CSD or is not
> in the SGC? Usually, the standard for municipal boundaries are the CSDs. At
> least, as far as I know, this is the standard geography. When referring to
> actual city limits, which geographical classification is it referring to?
>
> Sorry for the questions, I am trying to understand what is the
> classification used if its not the CSDs.
>
> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 9:11 AM, James <james2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Bernie, I've also noticed that StatsCan boundaries seem to be a
>> generalization of an area vs the actual city limits
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 9:02 AM, Bernie Connors <berniejconn...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Bjenk,
>>>
>>>   In NB there are issues with some census boundaries not matching
>>> with our administrative boundaries. The issue I am aware of was with the
>>> county boundaries. The census data that is analogous to our county
>>> boundaries included some significant deviations to prevent a municipality
>>> from being bisected by a county boundary. Please be careful that there is
>>> not a similar issue with the CSD boundaries. NB municipal boundaries can be
>>> downloaded from the GeoNB Data Catalogue For comparison to the CSD data.
>>>
>>> Bernie.
>>>
>>> Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Bell network.
>>> *From: *Bjenk Ellefsen
>>> *Sent: *Tuesday, March 7, 2017 9:51 AM
>>> *To: *talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
>>> *Subject: *[Talk-ca] Municipal boundaries
>>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> Municipal boundaries correspond to census subdivisions (CSD). I have
>>> seen that many municipalities do not have a boundary yet. Is it ok if I
>>> start adding some boundaries based on CSDs? Having the boundaries is
>>> important to make extractions and analysis at the municipal level.
>>>
>>> Bjenk
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Talk-ca mailing list
>>> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> 外に遊びに行こう！
>>
>
>


-- 
外に遊びに行こう！
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Municipal boundaries

[Bjenk Ellefsen]

Just to make sure we are talking about the same thing: Census Divisions are
higher level and more regional boundaries. CSDs are municipal boundaries
(in OSM, level 8).
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/eng/subjects/standard/sgc/2011/sgc-intro

Can you give me an example of city limits that don't match a CSD or is not
in the SGC? Usually, the standard for municipal boundaries are the CSDs. At
least, as far as I know, this is the standard geography. When referring to
actual city limits, which geographical classification is it referring to?

Sorry for the questions, I am trying to understand what is the
classification used if its not the CSDs.

On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 9:11 AM, James <james2...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Bernie, I've also noticed that StatsCan boundaries seem to be a
> generalization of an area vs the actual city limits
>
> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 9:02 AM, Bernie Connors <berniejconn...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Bjenk,
>>
>>   In NB there are issues with some census boundaries not matching
>> with our administrative boundaries. The issue I am aware of was with the
>> county boundaries. The census data that is analogous to our county
>> boundaries included some significant deviations to prevent a municipality
>> from being bisected by a county boundary. Please be careful that there is
>> not a similar issue with the CSD boundaries. NB municipal boundaries can be
>> downloaded from the GeoNB Data Catalogue For comparison to the CSD data.
>>
>> Bernie.
>>
>> Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Bell network.
>> *From: *Bjenk Ellefsen
>> *Sent: *Tuesday, March 7, 2017 9:51 AM
>> *To: *talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
>> *Subject: *[Talk-ca] Municipal boundaries
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> Municipal boundaries correspond to census subdivisions (CSD). I have seen
>> that many municipalities do not have a boundary yet. Is it ok if I start
>> adding some boundaries based on CSDs? Having the boundaries is important to
>> make extractions and analysis at the municipal level.
>>
>> Bjenk
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-ca mailing list
>> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> 外に遊びに行こう！
>
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Municipal boundaries

[Kevin Farrugia]

Morning Bjenk,

Just a heads up - municipal boundaries are best of they aren't just
straight up imported because they're usually done as relations.  For
example, we generally add roads into the boundary relationship rather than
overlapping boundary and roads.  Here's one I did before:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4198907 as well as the municipalities
within it (CSD).

For those that don't know the StatsCan lexicon, in Ontario they relate as:
-Census Subdivision (CSD) is a single tier municipality or lower tier
municipality.
-Census Division (CD) is a upper tier municipality (county, region,
district) or a single tier municipality.

Hope that helps out,
Kevin


On Mar 7, 2017 8:51 AM, "Bjenk Ellefsen"  wrote:

Hello,

Municipal boundaries correspond to census subdivisions (CSD). I have seen
that many municipalities do not have a boundary yet. Is it ok if I start
adding some boundaries based on CSDs? Having the boundaries is important to
make extractions and analysis at the municipal level.

Bjenk

___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Municipal boundaries

[James]

Bernie, I've also noticed that StatsCan boundaries seem to be a
generalization of an area vs the actual city limits

On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 9:02 AM, Bernie Connors <berniejconn...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Bjenk,
>
>   In NB there are issues with some census boundaries not matching with
> our administrative boundaries. The issue I am aware of was with the county
> boundaries. The census data that is analogous to our county boundaries
> included some significant deviations to prevent a municipality from being
> bisected by a county boundary. Please be careful that there is not a
> similar issue with the CSD boundaries. NB municipal boundaries can be
> downloaded from the GeoNB Data Catalogue For comparison to the CSD data.
>
> Bernie.
>
> Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Bell network.
> *From: *Bjenk Ellefsen
> *Sent: *Tuesday, March 7, 2017 9:51 AM
> *To: *talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> *Subject: *[Talk-ca] Municipal boundaries
>
> Hello,
>
> Municipal boundaries correspond to census subdivisions (CSD). I have seen
> that many municipalities do not have a boundary yet. Is it ok if I start
> adding some boundaries based on CSDs? Having the boundaries is important to
> make extractions and analysis at the municipal level.
>
> Bjenk
>
>
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>
>


-- 
外に遊びに行こう！
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Municipal boundaries

[Bernie Connors]

  Bjenk,      In NB there are issues with some census boundaries not matching with our administrative boundaries. The issue I am aware of was with the county boundaries. The census data that is analogous to our county boundaries included some significant deviations to prevent a municipality from being bisected by a county boundary. Please be careful that there is not a similar issue with the CSD boundaries. NB municipal boundaries can be downloaded from the GeoNB Data Catalogue For comparison to the CSD data. Bernie. Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Bell network.From: Bjenk EllefsenSent: Tuesday, March 7, 2017 9:51 AMTo: talk-ca@openstreetmap.orgSubject: [Talk-ca] Municipal boundariesHello, Municipal boundaries correspond to census subdivisions (CSD). I have seen that many municipalities do not have a boundary yet. Is it ok if I start adding some boundaries based on CSDs? Having the boundaries is important to make extractions and analysis at the municipal level.Bjenk


___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Municipal boundaries

[James]

Depends what boundaries you are talking about: City limits(admin_level=8)
there are a few(usually main cities) as for neighbourhoods (admin_level=9)
they are a rarity.

On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 8:50 AM, Bjenk Ellefsen 
wrote:

> Hello,
>
> Municipal boundaries correspond to census subdivisions (CSD). I have seen
> that many municipalities do not have a boundary yet. Is it ok if I start
> adding some boundaries based on CSDs? Having the boundaries is important to
> make extractions and analysis at the municipal level.
>
> Bjenk
>
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>
>


-- 
外に遊びに行こう！
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

[Talk-ca] Municipal boundaries

[Bjenk Ellefsen]

Hello,

Municipal boundaries correspond to census subdivisions (CSD). I have seen
that many municipalities do not have a boundary yet. Is it ok if I start
adding some boundaries based on CSDs? Having the boundaries is important to
make extractions and analysis at the municipal level.

Bjenk
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca