[Talk-ca] Aboriginal Lands in the territories
Hello all It's been awhile since I've had the time to do more than casual editing, but I'm looking at an import project in the territories and want to make sure there aren't going to be any issues. I'm hoping to import the land claims land boundaries in the territories from NRCan's Aboriginal Lands files. Unlike reserve boundaries, these are lands owned by an Indigenous Governing body with a unique governance regime set out in a land claims agreement. They generally have few if any permanent inhabitants but are used year-round for various purposes by the members of Indigenous group as well as non-Indigenous people subject to certain conditions. They clearly fit within the definitions set for the aboriginal lands tag. I figured it was important since some of these packages are extremely large (e.g. the Tłı̨chǫ lands northeast of Yellowknife are 39,000 sq km, most of which are in one giant contiguous piece). As far as I can tell the aboriginal lands tag is visible at level 8 and below, so it shouldn't have an impact on the map at the lower levels. Any thoughts? Sam ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
[Talk-ca] Canvec forest redux
Hi everyone Sorry for bringing this up, but I need to some Canvec importing. Given the controversy about Canvec earlier this month, I'm trying to decide how to do this. I could: - Leave the forests out entirely. - Or use it as an opportunity to experiment with the Manitoba Lands Initiative forest data. We've discussed MLI before and done some limited importing. And I'm curious to take a look at the data. Thoughts? Sam ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Canvec Reverts
I took a break to make supper, so I'm going to have to respond collectively. - Sammuell and sammuell_imports are my accounts. Both the forest and the lake are from Canvec data imported together as in the same tile. I Imported the whole thing (I would never import over existing data that carelessly), and take responsibility for that. - As my subsequent email showed, I missed the part about water/forest overlaps in Paul's email. Both and other people on this list have explained our feelings about this, but I will accept DWGs decision. - Per Michael's suggestion: This is constructive, but I do not feel that it is feasible because of the tiled structure of Canvec. To try and shift the forest layer over would make the problem worse. - Removal of the forest layer may be the best solution here. However there are many places in where the data matches up perfectly. Speaking only of areas where I am the primary importer, most of the forests in Ontario west of Thunder Bay would have to go, which is unfortunate because some have been manually corrected, though not enough to save them. Much (but certainly not all) of the forests in Manitoba could be saved with minimal effort. - If/when this is done we could look at ways to restore these forests. In areas that are mostly forest it shouldn't be too difficult to fill them using large multipolygons. Sam ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] CanVec Reverts
After reading Paul's email again, its possible that what Nakaner is doing is in line with Paul's suggestion, if unnecessarily confrontational. I tried to play around in JOSM to see if I could get the forest polygons to a point where Nakaner would leave us alone by mercilessly deleting all of the inner ways in the forest multipolygons, but because of the way things are structured around rivers that would be several hours worth of work for one tile. Given this perhaps the only solution is to bulk delete all Canvec forest data. As someone who actually finds the forest data useful this would be extremely unfortunate, but if it allows us to continue imports without excessive external scrutiny then I am willing to except it. (apologies for the English only emails, my French writing skills are sadly lacking) On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 4:20 PM, Pierre Béland <pierz...@yahoo.fr> wrote: > L'idéal préparer Une réponse standard indiquant que l'Import Canvec par la > communauté OSM Canada est itératif et nous nous assurons collectivement > d'améliorer les données. Voir page Wiki Import Canvec et venir discuter sur > Talk-Ca si vous avez d'autres questions. > > > Pierre > > > ------ > *De :* Sam Dyck <samueld...@gmail.com> > *À :* Talk-CA OpenStreetMap <talk-ca@openstreetmap.org> > *Envoyé le :* jeudi 1 Septembre 2016 17h06 > *Objet :* Re: [Talk-ca] CanVec Reverts > > I received the following changeset comment from Nakaner for a Canvec > import (changeset > 38158126) at 15:55 Central Time (20:55 UTC): > "This changeset has uploaded data which does not fit to each other. There > is an offset between the water areas and the forest areas. Example: > https://www.openstreetmap.org/ > way/406539219 <https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/406539219> > Could you please fix this?" > I believe the given what we have just spent the last 24 hours discussing > this request is unreasonable and the issue is not significant. Thoughts? > Sam > > ___ > 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] CanVec Reverts
I received the following changeset comment from Nakaner for a Canvec import (changeset 38158126) at 15:55 Central Time (20:55 UTC): "This changeset has uploaded data which does not fit to each other. There is an offset between the water areas and the forest areas. Example: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/406539219 Could you please fix this?" I believe the given what we have just spent the last 24 hours discussing this request is unreasonable and the issue is not significant. Thoughts? Sam ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Forests/Land Use, was: Canvec reverts
Regarding the burning of forests, I find the problems with forests tend to occur when the forests meet up with human activities (communities, gravel pits, etc.) If I'm importing in an area with some human settlement (and decent imagery) I will try and clean up the forest and landuse polygons around them. I personally find the forest data both personally useful and ascetically pleasing. If/when new NRCan data is released that provides better forest coverage, I would probably got through a bunch of my old imports and swap out the forest coverage. As for the urban areas I could care less if they get left out. ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] CanVec Reverts
Micheal Thanks for contacting us. I must object strongly to your use of the Worst of OSM example and generally assumption that the data is broken if it doesn't line up. I checked multiple commercial imagery providers before I found a digitalglobe image that covered the area during the summer. There is a large patch of sand between the vegetation-filled area and the coast. As for the boundary, that comes from another official source, I think it is supposed to be spaced off of the coastline, though I don't remember exactly how they calculated it, we would likely need a constitutional change to make it line up with the coast. Just because things don't match up does not mean that the data is wrong. Nature doesn't always translate into nice, clean maps. Sam -Original Message- From: Michael Reichert [mailto:naka...@gmx.net] Sent: Thursday, 1 September, 2016 01:39 To: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org Subject: [Talk-ca] CanVec Reverts -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Hi, unfortunately posting via Gmane does not seem to work (the website is down but NNTP still works), that's why I have to start a new thread. :-( Am Tue, 30 Aug 2016 21:41:21 -0500 schrieb Sam Dyck: > After reading through the changeset discussion, I discovered that one > of my imports in Northern Manitoba made Worst of OSM. > (http://worstofosm.tumblr.com/post/22180046353/dear- > openstreetmap-isnt-it-strange-how-the). As someone who spends a some > time amount of time in some of relatively unpopulated areas of Canada > and makes an effort to check the quality of Canvec data (which is > usually pretty good), I do agree that it is impossible to do > everything to the same level of quality that we would provide in > Toronto or Timmins or even small prairie towns. First of all, it is ok that an import takes a few years and therefore creates ugly green rectancles on the map. If an import is "unavoidable" :-), a manual import is the best thing that can be happen. But if someone uploads a changeset without a manual review beforehand, he counteracts the aim of a manual import: addind good data to OpenStreetMap. That's what I am mainly fighting against. If a users uploads much more than 100 objects per minute [1], you can be sure that he has not done any manual review. A manual review by myself confirmed this these. I am fighting against such changesets/users. A good imports must be reviewed *before* it is being uploaded. The review contains: - - Run JOSM validator, fix all warnings and errors. This includes all warnings regarding validity of areas. (you can argue if all warnings about "deprecated" tagging have to be fixed) - - Compare the data with available imagery. Is the forest really a forest or is another tag more appropiate? Right-click on a Bing tile at JOSM and have a look how old/recent the imagery is. - - Check if CanVec data fits to itself. http://worstofosm.tumblr.com/post/22180046353/dear-openstreetmap-isnt- it-strange-how-the <http://worstofosm.tumblr.com/post/22180046353/dear-openstreetmap-isnt-it-strange-how-the> - - Check if there has been any other data before. If yes, adapt the either the CanVec data or the old data. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Import-Fails-Powerlines-Not-Ins ide-Cutting.png <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Import-Fails-Powerlines-Not-Inside-Cutting.png> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/439631732 - - Ways should not overlap with other ways if it is not necessary. The outer ring of a lake should also be inner member of the forest multipolygon. Maybe the program which created the OSM files should be imprved? - - Keep the history. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#Keep_the_history If a tile has been imported without being checked manually and no post-upload fixes have been done (i.e. upload without any checks), I will not shrink from reverting it. If a tile has been uploaded to OSM without a review and if it has not been fixed within a month, it is worthless and can easily be reimported at a later time if someone has the time to check and fix it. For the future, I will abstain from reverting changesets which have been imported before September 1, 2016 and whose users are currently doing the fixes that should already have been done. But if I come across an imported tile of low quality which has not been touched for a few weeks and is full of errors, it is just a question of time until it is reverte d. Best regards Michael [1] I had a look on a few of my changesets which added a large number of buildings to OSM. The fastest changeset contained about 60 objects per minute and was full of missing buildings as I later detected while collecting the housenumbers and usage of the buildings. ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
[Talk-ca] What's up with those forests in Canada section
Here's my suggestion for a sort of FAQ (in wiki markup), incorporating what James already wrote. I'm posting it here for comment because I have a tendency to get unhelpfully passive aggressive. The squared off sections of forest in Canada are the result of unfinished CanVec data import. CanVec tiles are broken up into squares called the NTS grid to better manage the data. If you see a forest that's squared off with a empty section beside it, it's most likely that that grid has not been imported yet. ''What is Canvec?'' [[Canvec]] is a digital product produced by the federal government that is a combination of various federal geodata databases into 1:5 tiles. These tiles were converted by Natural Resources Canada into OSM XML and put on a government FTP server for importation into OSM. After several years of licensing discussion. ''Some of the data in a Canvec import changeset has something weird going on (forests overlapping in lakes, islands where there don't appear to islands, wetlands where there sohuld be lakes). Why are you importing this garbage?'' Canvec is generally accurate, it was collected from high quality satellite imagery collected for the federal government, and has generally withstood our attempts to ground truth it. However there are errors and apparent errors. Some of these can be explained by natural changes: lakeshores shift with the years and seasons, lakes become wetlands, forests burn or are cut down and regrow. The simple reason we have to do this import is because Canada is enormous and has very few people, consequently there are large areas that have a very light human presence. For example the territory of Nunavut, the largest subnational division in Canada, is larger than of France, Ukraine, Sweden and the United Kingdom combined and has less than 40,000 people. Most people in Canada live in a handful of cities a short distance from the US border. There is a lot of blank area to fill, and so we make an effort to import quality data, but there is a lot of area to cover, so after long discussions we arrived at the consensus that importing Canvec data was the best solution, providing we followed a set of practices. ''Don't you have local mappers in these communities who could check the data?'' Most likely no. See the note about population density above. Also much of non-urban Canada, especially Northern communities, have to rely on satellite internet, which is both extremely expensive and has both effective download speeds measured in kbps and small data caps of 5 or 10 GB. ''I see some issues with Canvec data, what should I do?'' If you think the data itself is in error, try and check to see if it could not possibly be an accurate reflection of what might be at some point. Canvec importers have been criticized for importing data, that while it looks suspicious, accurately reflects what is on the ground. If it's an obvious error that's easy to fix, go ahead and correct it. If there's something bigger, talk to the mapper or post on the talk-ca mailing list. ''I see something wrong with the actual structure of the data (overly complex ways, duplicate ways).'' These should have been fixed in the import, but sometimes things get missed. Please go ahead and fix them. ''I found a Canvec import that didn't comply with the import policy!'' Please don't revert it, despite the appearance of wholesale importing, a proper Canvec import takes a lot of time and effort on the part of the importer. Canvec imports began before the current import policy, and so some importers continued what they had already been doing unaware of the policy. Hopefully everyone is in compliance now, but if you do see importing incorrectly please assume good faith. ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] broken forests in eastern Canada
Or even a just a section of the Wikiproject Canada page. On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 10:50 AM, James <james2...@gmail.com> wrote: > We could add it as a subpage to: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/ > wiki/WikiProject_Canada seeing as it involves all of Canada and list out > why it's this way etc > > On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 10:40 AM, Begin Daniel <jfd...@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> “Whats up with the forests in Canada?” A wiki page is a good idea! >> >> >> >> And while talking about forest in eastern Canada… >> >> >> >> It would be very helpful to have a plugin in JOSM that deals with Canvec >> water/wooded area integration in multipolygon. I am not really a developer >> but since the merging operations are repeated over and over again over >> large areas... might it be possible to do something? >> >> >> >> On the same topic, it has been suggested to split wooded areas in smaller >> chunks by using features on the ground as outer limits (mostly roads, >> streams, rivers) and get rid of arbitrary rectangles from Canvec. Is it >> something we are aiming at? >> >> >> >> Daniel >> >> >> >> *From:* john whelan [mailto:jwhelan0...@gmail.com] >> *Sent:* Wednesday, 31 August, 2016 07:00 >> *To:* Sam Dyck >> *Cc:* Talk-CA OpenStreetMap >> *Subject:* Re: [Talk-ca] broken forests in eastern Canada >> >> >> >> > we need to have a "Whats up with the forests in Canada?" page on the >> wiki to explain our situation and how we've tried to deal with it >> >> Sounds like a plan. >> >> Cheerio John >> >> >> >> On 30 August 2016 at 22:41, Sam Dyck <samueld...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> After reading through the changeset discussion, I discovered that one of >> my imports in Northern Manitoba made Worst of OSM. ( >> http://worstofosm.tumblr.com/post/22180046353/dear-openstre >> etmap-isnt-it-strange-how-the). As someone who spends a some time amount >> of time in some of relatively unpopulated areas of Canada and makes an >> effort to check the quality of Canvec data (which is usually pretty good), >> I do agree that it is impossible to do everything to the same level of >> quality that we would provide in Toronto or Timmins or even small prairie >> towns. >> >> One of the things that seems to bother Nakaner and the WoO people (if I >> may put words in their mouths) is that the boundaries are a bit funky in >> Canvec. Forests, lakes and wetlands spill into each other, and they are >> often out of alignment with the Bing imagery. In some ways this reflects a >> degree of natural ambiguity: if we look at the above Hudson's bay >> coastline, their is hourly variation in coastlines, and even the long term >> patterns change over time. The Manitoba-Nunavut boundary is more or less >> fixed by so we can't correct it, and a glance at satellite imagery shows >> that the vegetation tends to be spaced off of the shoreline. >> >> That being said sometimes there is some weird stuff happening in Canvec >> data that is out of sync with what is on the ground. These should be >> corrected when detected, but are rare enough that they shouldn't be a >> problem. I confess I haven't always been great in following the rules when >> doing imports (I think the last few years I've been fully in compliance), >> and have sometimes caused problems, people on this list have generally >> understanding. Perhaps we need to have a "Whats up with the forests in >> Canada?" page on the wiki to explain our situation and how we've tried to >> deal with it. >> >> >> ___ >> 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 >> >> > > > -- > 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] broken forests in eastern Canada
After reading through the changeset discussion, I discovered that one of my imports in Northern Manitoba made Worst of OSM. ( http://worstofosm.tumblr.com/post/22180046353/dear-openstreetmap-isnt-it-strange-how-the). As someone who spends a some time amount of time in some of relatively unpopulated areas of Canada and makes an effort to check the quality of Canvec data (which is usually pretty good), I do agree that it is impossible to do everything to the same level of quality that we would provide in Toronto or Timmins or even small prairie towns. One of the things that seems to bother Nakaner and the WoO people (if I may put words in their mouths) is that the boundaries are a bit funky in Canvec. Forests, lakes and wetlands spill into each other, and they are often out of alignment with the Bing imagery. In some ways this reflects a degree of natural ambiguity: if we look at the above Hudson's bay coastline, their is hourly variation in coastlines, and even the long term patterns change over time. The Manitoba-Nunavut boundary is more or less fixed by so we can't correct it, and a glance at satellite imagery shows that the vegetation tends to be spaced off of the shoreline. That being said sometimes there is some weird stuff happening in Canvec data that is out of sync with what is on the ground. These should be corrected when detected, but are rare enough that they shouldn't be a problem. I confess I haven't always been great in following the rules when doing imports (I think the last few years I've been fully in compliance), and have sometimes caused problems, people on this list have generally understanding. Perhaps we need to have a "Whats up with the forests in Canada?" page on the wiki to explain our situation and how we've tried to deal with it. ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
[Talk-ca] Using a changeset as a source
Hi everyone I'm doing a Canvec Import (Version 10, not the OGL version) in NW Ontario. I came across some crudely traced lakes that had names lacking the Canvec data. I contacted the editor to verify the source and status of these names. When I hear back I plan to attach the names to the Canvec lake areas, which are a higher quality trace. Could I cite the names as "Source: Changset xxx"? Or is there a better way? Sam ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Manitoba Snowmobile trails
Hi Richard Some clarifications. I have contacted IndyGord through the message function, but have not received a response. Manitoba is an echo chamber. Including me there are only 3 or 4 frequent contributors. We rarely contact each other or coordinate, and aside from the time you were in Winnipeg I have never met another Winnipeg mapper in person. It's not that I haven't tried (I invited IndyGord to that event, they did not respond) but no one else seems interested. I contacted IndyGord through as general mail because snowmobile trails are all that they do, and all of them have the same problems, and it seems redundant to start a changeset discussion at this point (but am certainly open to it if you or others still feel it is appropriate) As for my relation, if people want to leave comments they can do so at http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/29282864 Sam On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 1:22 PM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 12:58 AM, Sam Dyck samueld...@gmail.com wrote: [ ... ] Additionally, thoughts on how to reach out to IndyGord would be appreciated. Same as for any other mapper, when you have thoughts to share about their mapping. These are in the order I type them, not of significance. :-) - site-mail. You can send a message to other users from your editing API account on OpenStreetMap.org. 1) log in to OpenStreetMap.org with your editing API account details. 2) visit the profile of the user in question. In this case I had to try a few because the case and spacing matters. https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Indygord 3) press send message and let them know what is on your mind. Offer constructive criticism or compliments. - user contact info. They might have an email address or web site address, in their user profile page. Same as above to visit the profile page. - changeset discussions. 1) Starting with the database object that has your attention, find the changeset that caused the issue. Perhaps, https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/29000428 2) Add your thoughts to the discussion box. Discussions are public. Be nice and presume that the mapper wanted to do the right thing. - reach out to them via this list, the main talk list, or the various IRC channels. - chat with them at local mapper events. Best regards and happy mapping, Richard ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
[Talk-ca] Manitoba Snowmobile trails
Hi everyone We have a user (IndyGord) who imported and has been updating the official organized snowmobile routes, which is great. Unfortunately he doesn't do a very good job. The trails ignore existing infrastructure and intersect highways without an intersecting node, which leads to things like this ( https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/49.44774/-96.25508 the snowmobile trails are tagged as paths, everything else is a track) and has caused problems with bike and foot routing throughout the province. I attempted to fix this by converting the trails into a relation and changing those routes accessible by other means of transportation into tracks. Paths that could not be used by anything except snowmobiles (i.e. they cross open water) were tagged foot=no and bicycle=no. I initially did trail 29 (http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4651257) but decided to look for feedback before proceeding. I sent a message to IndyGord on the 6th, but I haven't got a response. So I am looking for feedback on my conversion of trail 29 and any suggestions for how to do the rest of the province. Additionally, thoughts on how to reach out to IndyGord would be appreciated. Sam ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
[Talk-ca] Large polygons in JOSM
HI Currently I'm working on importing the Canvec tiles that make up Lac Seul in NW Ontario into OSM. Importing the data as it is, split into tiles and subtiles, is poor practice, and manually merging is time consuming and dull. So I began using JOSM's Join Overlapping Areas feature. This tool however requires that all ways be complete before merging. Resulting is a 100 000 node area that far exceeds JOSMs import limit and is time consuming to split up, and slows down JOSM. Is there an faster way to split this? Sam ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
[Talk-ca] Winnipeg Mappy Hour
Hello Winnipeggers Fellow Talk-CAer Richard Weait will be visiting out little piece of subarctic paradise. We (me and at least one other local OSMer) are planning to meet Sunday, February 9th at Stella's at Plug In ( http://osm.org/go/Wpz9m~CF8) from 19:00-21:00 to informally talk about OSM. You are welcome to attend, and it would be great if you could make it. Anyone who happens to be in Manitoba is welcome to come, please let me know so we have an idea of who to expect. Thanks Sam ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Winnipeg Mappy Hour -Interested?
Sounds great. The Winnipeg mappers have never really met before, so it will be nice to put faces to names. When do you plan on being in our frigid city? Sam ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Winnipeg Mappy Hour -Interested?
Unfortunately I work Monday evenings, so unless people are cool with starting around 22:00 I'm out. Even so you're right, we should get something going in Winnipeg. I tried a few years ago but it didn't really work out. Regardless we should see who's been editing in the Winnipeg area recently to invite people not on this list. Sam On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 1:01 PM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: Awesome! Three makes a great start. Others will be welcome as well, of course. Lianne, you'll be contributing just by being there. If you decide to ask questions, that's a big help too! Sam, I'm looking forward to putting a face to the name as well. How is the evening of Monday, February 10th? That looks like the only free time I'll have during my visit. Even if my free time doesn't line up with both of you, let's get something going on a regular basis in Winnipeg. :-) Who else is in? ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Bing
We had a similar problem in Winnipeg, the old higher-res imagery was removed in favour of the lower res but newer stuff (or maybe it was the other way around, I can't remember) Microsoft just replace the imagery with good quality stuff that's just a few months old. (it's fresher than google maps) Frankly I imagine they find the outdated imagery embarrassing. Sam ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
[Talk-ca] Canvec 12
Is there a timeline for converting Canvec 12 to OSM XML? If not, could I get a copy of canvec2osm so I can convert the files I need? Sam ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
[Talk-ca] Canvec v12
What are the details regarding the conversion to OSM format of Canvec v12? Sam ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
[Talk-ca] Forests and water multipolygons in Canvec
Hi I'm currently working on importing Canvec tile 063I05. I noticed that the islands in the Nelson River (of which there are many) have the forest area offset significantly from the inner way for water. This means that the area boundaries are offset, even though the geometry is almost identical, This creates forests that stretch several metres into the Nelson. I've been deleting the forest areas and adding forest tagging into the water areas, which is probably better than the two identical ways sharing nodes approach usually seen in Canvec data. The offset appears consistent, so I thought it should be noted in case it can be fixed. Sam ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
[Talk-ca] Lake Winnipeg
Hi A while back I changed tagged the southern half of Lake Winnipeg as natural=coastline so it will appear on all levels of the map. Per the suggestion of someone on this list, I kept the old water multipolygon so that it would not disappear until the next coastline update. It is now disappearing from the map, see http://osm.org/go/Wp9lapp-- Can someone suggest a way to stop this? Sam ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Lake Winnipeg
Thanks. I thought I had everything covered, but I suppose I should have double checked. Sam On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 1:10 PM, Andrew Lester a-les...@shaw.ca wrote: I just took a look, and the relation was broken in two places. One of the ways on the outer edge was missing, as was about half of one of the inner islands. I added the necessary ways back into the relation, so it should render properly now. Andrew Victoria, BC ** ** *From:* Sam Dyck [mailto:samueld...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Saturday, January 26, 2013 10:54 AM *To:* Talk-CA OpenStreetMap *Subject:* [Talk-ca] Lake Winnipeg ** ** Hi A while back I changed tagged the southern half of Lake Winnipeg as natural=coastline so it will appear on all levels of the map. Per the suggestion of someone on this list, I kept the old water multipolygon so that it would not disappear until the next coastline update. It is now disappearing from the map, see http://osm.org/go/Wp9lapp-- Can someone suggest a way to stop this? Sam ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] BC Resource Roads
Resource Roads are tricky for me. They often have access restrictions and may be closed and barricaded once a lease expires or a forestry block has been replanted. (at least in Manitoba) I use either highway=track tracktype=grade3 or highway=path FIXME: verify accesibility by trucks and ATVs, may be blocked http://osm.org/go/Wt2D1rA Shows some logging roads I mapped a while ago. These roads will likely exist as cutlines for 10+ years after logging operations have moved on, and some roads will continue to be maintained by the government as fireguards. Ultimately I don't think you can go wrong with highway=track unless you know the road is barricaded to block vehicle access. Sam ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
[Talk-ca] Switching Southern Lake Winnipeg to natural=coastline
Hi I'm doing a canvec import on S. Lake Winnipeg. I was planning on switching the lake boundary to natural=coastline from natural=water so it can be seen at all levels. The lake would be invisible until the next coastline update. Is that an issue for anyone? Sam ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
[Talk-ca] Big water in Northern MB
Hi everybody I've been in the bush for the past while, but am at home recovering from a minor injury for a few days. It seems that a large L shaped body of water has appeared north of Thomson MB. I can't quite figure it out (has it been cleaned up?), It seems to be connected with some edits I made in November, but I can't see why it only appeared now. Anyone know? Sam ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Canadian imports: good or bad?g
I just sent a message to Winnipeg Transit asking for a shapefile with every (well, almost all) addresses in Winnipeg. Given their open data policies, I think I have a good chance. The data will be better than StatsCan addresses and will allow us to make the existing map more accurate. I see OSM as providing a high quality product, imports allow us to focus on the features that make OSM unique. See http://osm.org/go/WtzVpPV, where I traced logging roads from Bing imagery, but got the base network from Canvec. In a week I'll be heading to a small village in Southern Manitoba. If it weren't for Canvec I would have to walk every street with a GPS while taking extensive notes, and then put everything together in JOSM. But Canvec data means that I can concentrate on working and not feel guilty about not mapping, but still add many features not collected by Google. Sam Dyck ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] localities
Sadly, in Winnipeg an attraction might not be far from the truth. As a travel writer from the Sydney Morning Herald put it So what does Winnipeg have going for it? On the surface, not much. This is a city that counts a difficult intersection (the aptly named Confusion Corner) as a famous landmark, which should tell you all you need to know. I digress, places like Confusion Corner and The Basketweave are typically used for navigation purposes, so while these places are often not formally listed (though Winnipeg Transit refers to Confusion Corner as Osborne Junction). I think the listing of these places is one of the strengths of OSM. We need to come up with a standard to tagging these places that exist primarily as a means to other places. (though VIA will sell you a ticket to places like Herchmer, Manitoba (http://osm.org/go/W6NBaQxa)) Sam Dyck From: William Rieck bi...@thinkers.org Confusion Corner reminded me of The Basketweave on the 401 in Toronto. http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=43.71829lon=-79.50048zoom=17layers=M Here a mapper has tagged the node as an attraction. On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 11:23 AM, Sam Dyck samueld...@gmail.com wrote: Actually both of the highway locations I cited are not from any database, but reflect the local names for the intersection. ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
[Talk-ca] (no subject)
Pierre I beg to differ, the OSM wiki states The place=locality tag can be used to name unpopulated place which is not associated with any feature to which such a tag could be associated. By default many small or unpopulated places are tagged as localities in canvec. When I preformed the upload along a remote northern rail line, I checked the community against a Government of Manitoba list and the census to determine if a place was populated. We do need some sort of tagging to indicated the railway significance, but I have used place=locality on road locations in both urban and rural environments as well (http://osm.org/go/Wpz83vHj2-- and http://osm.org/go/Wp5TRnmtN--). Sam ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] (no subject)
Actually both of the highway locations I cited are not from any database, but reflect the local names for the intersection. On 2/23/12, Gordon Dewis gor...@pinetree.org wrote: On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Sam Dyck samueld...@gmail.com wrote: I beg to differ, the OSM wiki states The place=locality tag can be used to name unpopulated place which is not associated with any feature to which such a tag could be associated. By default many small or unpopulated places are tagged as localities in canvec. When I preformed the upload along a remote northern rail line, I checked the community against a Government of Manitoba list and the census to determine if a place was populated. We do need some sort of tagging to indicated the railway significance, but I have used place=locality on road locations in both urban and rural environments as well (http://osm.org/go/Wpz83vHj2-- and http://osm.org/go/Wp5TRnmtN--). *Disclaimer*: *I am speaking only for myself and not in any official capacity for my employer, Statistics Canada.* When I think locality, I tend to think of a place, populated or otherwise, that has been designated by some level of government, but that's because of where I work. :) Statistics Canada had a concept called a locality that was used up to the 2006 Census. In 2011 it has been merged with place name, the definition of which is selected named of active and retired geographic areas as well as nams from the Canadadian Geographical Names Database. Place names include names of census divisions (municipalities), designated places and population centres, as well as the names of some local places. The Census Dictionary also notes that prior to 2011, the term 'locality' was used to describe historical place names, such as former census subdivisions (municipalities), designated places and urban areas. (ref: http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2011/ref/dict/geo033-eng.cfm) I seem to recall from when I worked in the Geography Division here that localities and place names were from official sources (i.e. the various levels of government). Building on that, named points along a railway would not be considered localities because they are operational reference points designated by the railway operator, much like IFR intersections used in the aviation world. Using place=locality on road locations, on the other hand, would make sense because of who designated the name. As I mentioned above, *I am speaking only for myself and not in any official capacity for my employer, Statistics Canada*. Cheers! --G* * ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
[Talk-ca] Named railway locations
Hi I have always just used place=locality, see http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=56.5643012523651lon=-94.0601348876953zoom=16. ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Canadian Municipal Open Data Licenses
Winnipeg's online data is limited and locked down. However, the data that Winnipeg Transit's api (http://api.winnipegtransit.com/) spits out is dedicated to the Public Domain. With a few modifications of their api is would be very easy to import every address in Winnipeg into OSM. I've put in a request for that feature but don't know if anything will ever come of it. In the meantime I'm trying to come up with a way to work around it. We also use Manitoba Lands Initiative data a lot, that should be added to the list. Sam ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Tagging Rail POIs - Help please
Canvec has the same problem, stations that had service many years ago are still tagged as stations, even if they been replaced by new stations. Smith Falls, Ontario has three stations shown, one is the current VIA Rail station, one is a former station and the third is not even on a track. Sam Dyck ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Tagging Rail POIs - Help please
In regards to Andrew and Richard's comments, I find place:locality to be suitable for this situation. I have used it for places like Diamond, Manitoba. It has also been used to mark highway junctions with names (such as Confusion Corner in Winnipeg). Sam ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Talk-ca Digest, Vol 46, Issue 2
Excellent, but is the City of Winnipeg aerial imagery kosher for use with OSM? I was under the impression that the aside from the Transit Department, the city doesn't believe in open data. Are you using a WMS server to access it or downloading the images and loading them into JSOM? Sam Dyck On 12/2/11, talk-ca-requ...@openstreetmap.org talk-ca-requ...@openstreetmap.org wrote: Send Talk-ca mailing list submissions to talk-ca@openstreetmap.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to talk-ca-requ...@openstreetmap.org You can reach the person managing the list at talk-ca-ow...@openstreetmap.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than Re: Contents of Talk-ca digest... Today's Topics: 1. Re-licensing -- a good excuse to rework some data. (Tyler Gunn) -- Message: 1 Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2011 20:56:27 -0600 From: Tyler Gunn ty...@egunn.com To: Talk-CA OpenStreetMap talk-ca@openstreetmap.org Subject: [Talk-ca] Re-licensing -- a good excuse to rework some data. Message-ID: capuij2uean4o-gnyeoclvx9vmc8gu0i-hxo1mybfd4esazu...@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 I've noticed many people are worried about the pending purge of data from users who has not agreed to the new terms. There was a large are in Winnipeg contributed by the user VReimer, who has yet to agree to the new license. Further, there has been question in the past where this user obtained the data, and whether it was legit or not. So, as an example of what we can accomplish with a bit of effort, I decided to replace the entire area bounded by St. Mary's Road to the West, St. Anne's Road to the East, Bishop Grandin to the North, and the Perimeter Highway to the South. I'm quite pleased with the results; the road network is smooth and clean, even at high zoom levels, and best of all it's all legit: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=49.82032lon=-97.096zoom=15layers=M I used a combination of: - Bing imagery, which for the top half of the area was available in VERY high resolution. Knowing that Bing is not always aligned well, I used a combination of city of winnipeg Cadastral polygons (available from Manitoba Lands Initiative), and the City of Winnipeg 50cm aerial imagery, which is VERY well aligned to the cadastral data, to re-align the Bing imagery. - in the bottom half of the area, only the MLI aerial imagery was available. Not as high resolution as Bing, but certainly decent. - land use areas were derived by overlaying aerial imagery with the cadastral polygons (showing individual lots and land parcels) , and then combining them in Quantum GIS into the larger landuse blobs. - the road network is 100% hand-drawn from re-aligned aerial imagery - road attributes and surfaces are derived from my knowledge of the area and the imagery. - road names are copied from CanVec tiles. Let me know what you all think. Tyler -- ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca End of Talk-ca Digest, Vol 46, Issue 2 ** ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
[Talk-ca] Winnipeg Meetup/Mapping party
Hi I'm sending this around to see what the interest level among Winnipeg OSMers is. Since most roads are mapped, I was thinking of adding features such as postboxes, public phones and restaurants in the Downtown area. I've already contacted some people individually and will be contacting more. Thanks Sam ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
[Talk-ca] Russia
Hi I know this is the wrong place to ask but, why does Russia's borders go to the edge of the map while no other country at extreme latitudes is done the same way? Sam ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
[Talk-ca] What Google Copying?
So I found a subdivision which most certainly does not exist, and may well never exist in Google herehttp://maps.google.ca/maps?f=qsource=s_qhl=engeocode=q=8+Neptune+Baysll=49.918003,-97.039597sspn=0.009243,0.01929ie=UTF8hq=hnear=8+Neptune+Bay,+Winnipeg,+Division+No.+11,+Manitoball=49.847205,-97.168794spn=0.004628,0.009645t=hz=17. The streets are not on Yahoo, Bing, OSM or NRN. The land the streets occupy is owned by Manitoba Hydro and has to high voltage lines that pass through it towards the Taylor and Scotland Yard Stations and Downtown Winnipeg (OSMhttp://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=49.85185lon=-97.1602zoom=15layers=B000FTF) and while development is planned nearby, I believe this land is off limits for obvious reasons. This would suggest to me that vreimer either lives in Winnipeg and knows Google is wrong, or doesn't get data from Google (which previous posts also suggested). Sam ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] What Google Copying?
Found another example near Valemount, BC, where NRN has a road called Blackman Road (east of a certain road) and Lheureux (west of certain road). Bing has called the road Chevreux. vreimer got it correct, meaning he's not copying Bing either. It's all so mysterious Adam On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 4:50 PM, Sam Dyck samueld...@gmail.com wrote: So I found a subdivision which most certainly does not exist, and may well never exist in Google herehttp://maps.google.ca/maps?f=qsource=s_qhl=engeocode=q=8+Neptune+Baysll=49.918003,-97.039597sspn=0.009243,0.01929ie=UTF8hq=hnear=8+Neptune+Bay,+Winnipeg,+Division+No.+11,+Manitoball=49.847205,-97.168794spn=0.004628,0.009645t=hz=17. The streets are not on Yahoo, Bing, OSM or NRN. The land the streets occupy is owned by Manitoba Hydro and has to high voltage lines that pass through it towards the Taylor and Scotland Yard Stations and Downtown Winnipeg ( OSMhttp://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=49.85185lon=-97.1602zoom=15layers=B000FTF) and while development is planned nearby, I believe this land is off limits for obvious reasons. This would suggest to me that vreimer either lives in Winnipeg and knows Google is wrong, or doesn't get data from Google (which previous posts also suggested). Sam ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] What Google Copying?
Not in Winnipeg, the city doesn't believe in open data and the maps website is incredibly cumbersome. The street name that got this discussion started was correct on the city's assessment website (the only city map that actually works). Sam On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 11:10 PM, Dan Putler dan.put...@sauder.ubc.cawrote: Could there be district municipality or regional district engineering/road department shapefiles or cad files floating around for some of these areas? Dan On Sun, 2010-02-28 at 20:50 -0800, Adam Dunn wrote: I've been looking at StatCan's GeoSearch 2006 map [ http://geodepot.statcan.ca/GeoSearch2006/GeoSearch2006.jsp?minx=4432901.48950264miny=2238764.61686325maxx=4434592.66597324maxy=2239794.02862796LastImage=http://geodepot.statcan.ca/Diss/Output/GeoSearch2006_geodepotfarm531483932432153.gifresolution=Hlang=EswitchTab=0] and it seems like vreimer isn't using that one as a copy. Interestingly, Stats Can and NRN disagree with each other on some of the same points that I noticed in vreimer's differences against NRN, but Stats Can introduces yet another variation of errors in the Valemount area. In other words, vreimer, Google, Bing, NRN, and Stats Can all have slightly different versions of Valemount. Not one of those is exactly like any of the others. For some things that vreimer had differed from NRN, he was a match for Stats Can, but then for some things he was different than Stats Can. For example, the Williams Drive/Juniper/Larch area, vreimer had a topological match to Stats Can (Williams Drive extending past Juniper, and no Larch at all), but Stats Can calls it Williams Rd, whereas NRN says Dr, and vreimer has Dr. I looked at Atlas of Canada, but didn't see a slippy map that shows street names. Is there a map from Atlas of Canada that has street names without having to download the data and open it up in some GIS software? Adam On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 5:20 PM, Sam Dyck samueld...@gmail.com wrote: Found another example near Valemount, BC, where NRN has a road called Blackman Road (east of a certain road) and Lheureux (west of certain road). Bing has called the road Chevreux. vreimer got it correct, meaning he's not copying Bing either. It's all so mysterious Adam On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 4:50 PM, Sam Dyck samueld...@gmail.com wrote: So I found a subdivision which most certainly does not exist, and may well never exist in Google here. The streets are not on Yahoo, Bing, OSM or NRN. The land the streets occupy is owned by Manitoba Hydro and has to high voltage lines that pass through it towards the Taylor and Scotland Yard Stations and Downtown Winnipeg (OSM) and while development is planned nearby, I believe this land is off limits for obvious reasons. This would suggest to me that vreimer either lives in Winnipeg and knows Google is wrong, or doesn't get data from Google (which previous posts also suggested). Sam ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca -- Dan Putler Sauder School of Business University of British Columbia ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] More Google Copying
I did, Geobase doesn't even have the street and lacks street names in Manitoba. (at least this is the case in the viewer. The Geobase data in Winnipeg appears to be out of date by at least 14 years in some cases. But yes, a mapping party would be a good idea, any other Winnipegers on this list? On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 5:18 PM, Sam Vekemans acrosscanadatra...@gmail.comwrote: Thanks for sharing. The user seems to be doing alot of great work. Did you cross-check with the GeoBase data? Im not sure what the spelling of it is in there. If anyone is in Winnipeg, perhaps a couch mapping party is needed? Cheers, Sam On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 3:05 PM, Sam Dyck samueld...@gmail.com wrote: So I just got a job that involves entering addresses into Google Maps (don't ask), one of these streets, Drobot Place (all address in winnipeg), Google has either deliberately or accidentally named Drobol Place (herehttp://maps.google.ca/maps?f=qsource=s_qhl=engeocode=q=54+Drobol+Placesll=49.940788,-97.039954sspn=0.009239,0.01929gl=caie=UTF8hq=hnear=54+Drobol+Pl,+Winnipeg,+Division+No.+11,+Manitoball=49.94056,-97.040133spn=0.009239,0.01929z=16, compare Yahoohttp://ca.maps.yahoo.com/#mvt=mlat=49.940088lon=-97.039395zoom=16q1=44%20Drobot%20Place%2C%20Winnipeg, Bing,http://www.bing.com/maps/#JndoZXJlMT01NiUwOURyb2JvdCtQbGFjZSZiYj00OS45NDQ1OTAyNzAwMzM5JTdlLTk3LjAyODQ1MjY2NDM3MDklN2U0OS45MzUxMDI4MTY4ODQzJTdlLTk3LjA0ODQwODI5OTQ0MTc= City of Winnipeg Assesmenthttp://map.winnipeg.ca/AsmtPreview/AsmtMap.asp?fav=FCurrentYearLabel=2009%20Assessment%20Roll%20%282003%20market%20value%29DisplayProposed=TProposedYearLabel=Proposed%202010%20Assessment%20Value%20%28Market%20value%20as%20at%20April%201,%202008%29PIN=4003338400BufferSize=100MapWidth=800MapHeight=600lang=ENMaptype=ADV, Google Street Viewhttp://maps.google.ca/maps?client=firefox-achannel=shl=ensource=hpq=70+drobol+place,+Winnipegie=UTF8hq=hnear=70+Drobol+Pl,+Winnipeg,+Division+No.+11,+Manitobagl=caei=c7OBS5imEMqXtgfn39GSBwved=0CAkQ8gEwAAll=49.941181,-97.039624spn=0.002375,0.006968z=18layer=ccbll=49.941066,-97.039721panoid=rJZ56epUjR7hEGhBbvZq-wcbp=12,148.29,,0,3.34(Needs Flash)). OSM makes the same mistakehttp://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=49.9405lon=-97.04047zoom=17layers=B000FTFas Google, which leads me to beileve that the street and others were copied from Google. I really hate telling people that I caught them cheating. (I'm sure it was an honest mistake) Could someone please contact the editor responsible (you can look him/her up, I don't want to name names. I would be willing to help with any followup and cleanup, and you can give them my username (sammuell) if you wish, I just can't bring myself to send a message explaining just how I caught them. Thanks Sam ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] More Google Copying
Yes, but we don't know for sure if the error (and all the other data) came from that database. On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 7:47 PM, Sam Vekemans acrosscanadatra...@gmail.comwrote: http://geodepot.statcan.gc.ca/2006/180506051805140305/06180505162102/92-500-072305/2009001/qual-eng.htm *Elections Canada Geographic Database* In 1993, Elections Canada started to compile the Elections Canada Geographic Database, using data from the Street Network Files, National Topographic Database and Digital Chart of the World. Paper maps were created for areas not covered by the Street Network Files and were distributed to the Elections Canada returning officers, who added the road names with information from the field. Elections Canada updated the road network with new roads and added the road names but not address ranges. ... So it could have been from NTDB data origionally, but the road name could have been copied down wrong by the elections Canada officer. Where the purpose was really to just get 'a' roadname, as the actual statistics package was what they were after. ... and it appears that the data quality would also very across the country. In which case, sliding it to where the GeoBaseNRN says the roads are, would be the best bet. Cheers, Sam On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 5:21 PM, Sam Dyck samueld...@gmail.com wrote: Could someone check? StatsCan's website isn't working for me Sam On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 7:17 PM, Sam Vekemans acrosscanadatra...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, Yup, i just sent off a nice message. Hopefully it will be recieved. I'll let you know if i get a responce back. On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 4:42 PM, Dan Putler dan.put...@sauder.ubc.cawrote: Could the data be from the StatsCan RNF? That would explain the geometry being off, while having street names on the ways. Maybe? Then if that's true... then i think it's fine what the user is doing. Its still improving the map (from a blank map). Once the NRCan data is available, then more work is needed (for everywhere for all the features). But again it's to improve the map. So the fact that the geometry is off. We need to ask, how much off is it? ... if it's within 10meters, then it's still acceptable (as thats the GPS standard, when no other sources are available). Since GeoBase roads just has the basic linework is available. The solution would be to also convert the GeoBaseNRN data for Manitoba, then have the .osm files open in JOSM adjust the OSM data to fit the GeoBase road network geometry. And the other solution is to be copying directly from the NRCan paper map sheets (available as PDFfiles). they just need to be alligned with some identifing points (the sheets have corner coordinates on it) and matched to JOSM points. (i used Garmin MapSource to make a waypoint at the exact corners of the sheet to get it lined up) A manual process, but if it's done by local people while adding more details, it shouldn't be that hard. Cheers, Sam On Sun, 2010-02-21 at 16:34 -0800, Adam Dunn wrote: The NRN site confirms that names are not available in Manitoba (NRN for that province is on version 3) [1]. Sam, maybe you should send a nice email explaining that a blank map is better than an illegal one. This person has made edits to my hometown that I basically had to revert because the geometry was way off. Don't know what his source is... [1] http://www.geobase.ca/geobase/en/data/nrn/status.html Adam On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 4:03 PM, Sam Dyck samueld...@gmail.com wrote: About an hour ago he/she was editing in Saskatoon, and has done a lot of work in Rural Manitoba to. On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 5:48 PM, Sam Vekemans acrosscanadatra...@gmail.com wrote: Not sure if this link works http://www.itoworld.com/product/osm/map?area=1372:7show=userssort=total-colour=date:30 But you can see whats going on in the area.. (or just log in and zoom to the area to find the mappers) http://picasaweb.google.ca/lh/photo/Orkp7E40gO0fwyJ8AKlIZQ?feat=directlink Ya, it seems like alot of work has been done reciently. Cheers, Sam Twitter: @Acrosscanada Blog: http://Acrosscanadatrails.blogspot.com Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/sam.vekemans Skype: samvekemans OpenStreetMap IRC: http://irc.openstreetmap.org @Acrosscanadatrails On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 3:36 PM, Sam Dyck samueld...@gmail.com wrote: I did, Geobase doesn't even have the street and lacks street names in Manitoba. (at least this is the case in the viewer. The Geobase data in Winnipeg
[Talk-ca] Setting up RoadMatcher and creating shapefiles
Hi Sorry to ask for help, but I really want to start importing Geobase data for Manitoba and Saskatchewan. If someone is able to help me install RoadMatcher on (open)JUMP and create Shapefiles from OSM data on a Debian GNU/Linux system. Again, if it is such an odious task forget it. But to the best of knowledge there is no one importing data for these provinces, and it would allow me to focus on other features of the map if this data was imported. Thanks Sam D. ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Setting up RoadMatcher and creating shapefiles
Hi Thanks I'll break it down 1. Obtain the NRN data files from Geobase as a shapefile (SHP). *Quite easy to do, just a simple download* 2. Generate a shapefile for the NRN data in an area (converted to WGS84), and a second shapefile based on existing OSM roads in the area. Ensure that both the OSM and NRN data are using the same geographic coordinate system. This can be done in a number of ways (See below). *Have no idea how to begin doing this* 3. Import the shapefiles into RoadMatcherhttp://www.jump-project.org/project.php?PID=RMSID=OVERand run the AutoMatch routine using the NRN as the base data set. * I can download both programs but can't get them to work together. I also don't understand the purpose postgresql, but can and have installed it. * 4. Export the results *Haven't gotten to this point.* 5. Run the geobase2osm http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Geobase2osmscript against the NRN GML file for the area passing the RoadMatcher results with the -e flag. This will generate a .osm file with the complete NRN road network in the area and a second .standalone.osm file that only contains roads that RoadMatcher has determined are not already in OSM* It's a python script, I can proabably run that easily* 6. Import the resulitng .standalone.osm file using bulk_upload.pyhttp://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bulk_upload.py Thanks, but again, I don't want to inconvenience everyone (I understand saying this may make it more tempting to help me, so please don't think you have to) Sam On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 10:17 PM, Steve Singer ssinger...@sympatico.cawrote: On Fri, 25 Sep 2009, Sam Dyck wrote: Can you give me an idea as to which parts/steps of the instructions at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Geobase_NRN_-_OSM_Map_Feature your having problems with? I'm can try to clarify/provide more info on any steps that are unclear. Basically you need to 1. Load the NRN data into postgis (using shp2pgsql which is included with postgis) 2. Load the OSM data into postgis with osm2pgsql 3. Generate shapefiles with the NRN and OSM data using stored procedures similar to those posted on the wiki page Then you need to import the files into OpenJump/road matcher (The wiki has some instructions on doing this, and I can try to answer if anything isn't that clear). Steve Hi Sorry to ask for help, but I really want to start importing Geobase data for Manitoba and Saskatchewan. If someone is able to help me install RoadMatcher on (open)JUMP and create Shapefiles from OSM data on a Debian GNU/Linux system. Again, if it is such an odious task forget it. But to the best of knowledge there is no one importing data for these provinces, and it would allow me to focus on other features of the map if this data was imported. Thanks Sam D. ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
[Talk-ca] Geobase errors
Hi I've already found some errors in GeoBase, is there a mechanism to report these? Sam ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
[Talk-ca] Issues in Winnipeg
Hi I got an reply from the mapper I referred to earlier. I have used maps for augmenting my own memory, but i'm sure some places i have relied on a copyrighted map for the name of a street. I have become aware that this is not allowed, and can additionally lead to errors. I have decided not to read from maps any further. I'm not exactly sure which streets are sheer map-reading, and which are not... I think we just might have to leave it, though I am worried about copyright traps. Sam ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
[Talk-ca] Issues in Winnipeg
Hi In an email from fellow OSMer when when causally mentioned that he was using city maps, paper maps and google to get street names for OSM in Winnipeg. I replied and pointed out the policy regarding this but after several days of waiting for a reply have got none. What fo I do. I would like help correcting his mistakes, but I don't feel comfortable naming him (thus making it possible to revert his edits) until he replys. He has contributed substanitally to OSM in Winnipeg in the past mounth and it would take alot of work to unname all the streets he named. Most of the streets were already mapped but not named. What do I do? Sam ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Issues in Winnipeg
Hi In an email from fellow OSMer when when causally mentioned that he was using city maps, paper maps and google to get street names for OSM in Winnipeg. I replied and pointed out the policy regarding this but after several days of waiting for a reply have got none. What fo I do. I would like help correcting his mistakes, but I don't feel comfortable naming him (thus making it possible to revert his edits) until he replys. He has contributed substanitally to OSM in Winnipeg in the past mounth and it would take alot of work to unname all the streets he named. Most of the streets were already mapped but not named. What do I do? Sam ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Issues in Winnipeg
I'll try contacting them again and see what happens. Sam On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 11:32 AM, Sam Dyck samueld...@gmail.com wrote: Hi In an email from fellow OSMer when when causally mentioned that he was using city maps, paper maps and google to get street names for OSM in Winnipeg. I replied and pointed out the policy regarding this but after several days of waiting for a reply have got none. What fo I do. I would like help correcting his mistakes, but I don't feel comfortable naming him (thus making it possible to revert his edits) until he replys. He has contributed substanitally to OSM in Winnipeg in the past mounth and it would take alot of work to unname all the streets he named. Most of the streets were already mapped but not named. What do I do? Sam ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
