On Mon, 2016-08-29 at 23:47 -0400, Gordon Dewis wrote: > > > On Aug 29, 2016, at 11:12 PM, Antoine Beaupré > > org> wrote: > > > > On 2016-08-25 10:13:25, Gordon Dewis wrote: > > > Alan is right. I've brought in a few tiles worth of forests from > > > Canvec in > > > the area you're talking about, but they were non-trivial to deal > > > with > > > compared to most other features. I kept running into limits in > > > the tools I > > > was using at the time and I haven't returned to them since. > > Yeah, that's what I figured.... I hope my comment didn't come > > across as > > criticizing the work that was done importing that data into OSM - I > > know > > how challenging and frustrating that work can be. > > > > But I must admit it seems a little rough to have those patches up > > there. I don't mind the "seams" between the CANVEC imported blocks, > > which don't seem to show up on the main map anymore anyways. But > > the *missing* blocks are really problematic and confusing. And they > > show > > up not only all the way up north and in weird places, but in > > critical > > areas. for example, here's a blank spot right north of Canada's > > capital: > > > > http://osm.org/go/cIhYCSU-?m= > > > > It seems a whole area was just not imported up there... oops! This > > shows > > up here and there in seemingly random places. > Whoever was working on it was probably struggling with the tiles and > subtitles in Canvec and threw in the towel. I was working on the > forests around Golden Lake, for example, and ran into problems and > limitations with the tools I was using at the time. I would love to > import more, but it’s a daunting task. > > Another problem I noticed is when trying to merge “new” forests with > existing forests was the existing forests would disappear because the > topology changed, similar to problems you can see with lakes and > islands. That alone was enough to make me back off and undo the > inadvertent damage. > > > I wonder if it wouldn't be better to remove parts of the CANVEC > > import > > until we can figure out how to better import them in the future, > > if, of > > course, we have a documented way of restoring the state of affairs > > we > > have now... As was mentionned elsewhere, it seems to me that the > > data > > that is there now somewhat makes it more difficult to go forward > > and > > hides more important data (like park boundaries). > Unless the parts of Canvec are going to be replaced with more > comprehensive coverage, I think that removing the existing forests > would not be a Good Thing. > > > I believe it would be more important to map out park boundaries > > than > > actual forest limits which, quite unfortunately, change in pretty > > dramatic ways in Québec, due to massive logging that has been > > happening > > for decades. > Park boundaries are mostly in already, aren’t they? They are fairly > easy features to import compared to forests. Tell you what, I do what I can to import the data, and fill in the gaps. I stopped importing data about a year ago, my skin just wasn't thick enough.
_______________________________________________ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
