[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
Re: [Talk-ca] Aboriginal Lands
Bonjour All, Paul propose not to include aboriginal lands in the next Canvec.osm release. I would like to have more feedback from the community before excluding it :-) Regards, Daniel -Original Message- From: Paul Norman [mailto:penor...@mac.com] Sent: February 13, 2012 18:55 To: Bégin, Daniel Cc: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org Subject: RE: [Talk-ca] Aboriginal Lands Then I don't think they should be included in canvec.osm -Original Message- From: Bégin, Daniel [mailto:daniel.be...@rncan-nrcan.gc.ca] Sent: Monday, February 13, 2012 6:04 AM To: Paul Norman Cc: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org Subject: RE: [Talk-ca] Aboriginal Lands Bonjour again Paul, An example is not yet available but yes, it will form closed area split like large lake. That is a limitation of the Canvec.osm product for the moment :-( Daniel -Original Message- From: Paul Norman [mailto:penor...@mac.com] Sent: February 13, 2012 05:35 To: Bégin, Daniel; 'Tyler Gunn'; talk-ca@openstreetmap.org Subject: RE: [Talk-ca] Aboriginal Lands Does this mean that they would form closed areas split like large lakes are? If so, this makes them unsuitable for importing into OSM without significant work. Can we see an example area so that we know what you are proposing? -Original Message- From: Bégin, Daniel [mailto:daniel.be...@rncan-nrcan.gc.ca] Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2012 1:54 PM To: Tyler Gunn; talk-ca@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Aboriginal Lands Bonjour Tyler, Aboriginal Lands are already available in shape and gml format on GeoBase website. It provides a dataset for the entire country. The Canvec product is produced on 50K map sheet coverage. The Aboriginal Lands, if provided through Canvec.osm product, will complied to the 50K map sheet coverage. Best regards, Daniel -Original Message- From: Tyler Gunn [mailto:ty...@egunn.com] Sent: February 9, 2012 16:38 To: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Aboriginal Lands It is possible to include Aboriginal Lands in the next release of Canvec.osm. However, I'm trying to find a consensus in the community concerning the tags/values to use? I've found some links to... - boundary=administrative; admin_level =aboriginal_land - boundary=administrative; admin_level =2 to 4 - boundary=protected_area; protect_class=24 I'm curious how this information would be represented given the distribution of CanVec data in a tiled format? Given that administrative boundaries tend to span larger areas, I don't know if it would make sense to split these at tile boundaries. Were you thinking to provide these boundaries in a separate file of sorts? How these boundaries are represented should perhaps be driven from where they fit into the overall picture in terms of how Canada is split up? When I think of things like the country, provinces, territories, cities/towns/etc, these all fit nicely into the boundary=administrative and admin_level hierarchy. We have separate boundary types for provincial parks, national parks, etc, and I'd probably interpret the aboriginal lands the same way. So I think its entirely reasonable to represent these as: boundary=aboriginal_land Tyler ___ 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
Re: [Talk-ca] Aboriginal Lands
If the Aboriginal lands are easily available from another source (GeoBase) and including them in Canvec.osm is going to make the data more complex I think the aboriginal lands should be excluded from Canvec.osm. -- Bernie Connors, P.Eng Service New Brunswick (506) 444-2077 45°56'25.21N, 66°38'53.65W www.snb.ca/geonb/ -Original Message- From: Bégin, Daniel [mailto:daniel.be...@rncan-nrcan.gc.ca] Sent: Tuesday, 2012-02-14 09:05 To: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Aboriginal Lands Bonjour All, Paul propose not to include aboriginal lands in the next Canvec.osm release. I would like to have more feedback from the community before excluding it :-) Regards, Daniel -Original Message- From: Paul Norman [mailto:penor...@mac.com] Sent: February 13, 2012 18:55 To: Bégin, Daniel Cc: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org Subject: RE: [Talk-ca] Aboriginal Lands Then I don't think they should be included in canvec.osm -Original Message- From: Bégin, Daniel [mailto:daniel.be...@rncan-nrcan.gc.ca] Sent: Monday, February 13, 2012 6:04 AM To: Paul Norman Cc: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org Subject: RE: [Talk-ca] Aboriginal Lands Bonjour again Paul, An example is not yet available but yes, it will form closed area split like large lake. That is a limitation of the Canvec.osm product for the moment :-( Daniel -Original Message- From: Paul Norman [mailto:penor...@mac.com] Sent: February 13, 2012 05:35 To: Bégin, Daniel; 'Tyler Gunn'; talk-ca@openstreetmap.org Subject: RE: [Talk-ca] Aboriginal Lands Does this mean that they would form closed areas split like large lakes are? If so, this makes them unsuitable for importing into OSM without significant work. Can we see an example area so that we know what you are proposing? -Original Message- From: Bégin, Daniel [mailto:daniel.be...@rncan-nrcan.gc.ca] Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2012 1:54 PM To: Tyler Gunn; talk-ca@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Aboriginal Lands Bonjour Tyler, Aboriginal Lands are already available in shape and gml format on GeoBase website. It provides a dataset for the entire country. The Canvec product is produced on 50K map sheet coverage. The Aboriginal Lands, if provided through Canvec.osm product, will complied to the 50K map sheet coverage. Best regards, Daniel -Original Message- From: Tyler Gunn [mailto:ty...@egunn.com] Sent: February 9, 2012 16:38 To: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Aboriginal Lands It is possible to include Aboriginal Lands in the next release of Canvec.osm. However, I'm trying to find a consensus in the community concerning the tags/values to use? I've found some links to... - boundary=administrative; admin_level =aboriginal_land - boundary=administrative; admin_level =2 to 4 - boundary=protected_area; protect_class=24 I'm curious how this information would be represented given the distribution of CanVec data in a tiled format? Given that administrative boundaries tend to span larger areas, I don't know if it would make sense to split these at tile boundaries. Were you thinking to provide these boundaries in a separate file of sorts? How these boundaries are represented should perhaps be driven from where they fit into the overall picture in terms of how Canada is split up? When I think of things like the country, provinces, territories, cities/towns/etc, these all fit nicely into the boundary=administrative and admin_level hierarchy. We have separate boundary types for provincial parks, national parks, etc, and I'd probably interpret the aboriginal lands the same way. So I think its entirely reasonable to represent these as: boundary=aboriginal_land Tyler ___ 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 ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Aboriginal Lands
I'm not so concerned with the aboriginal lands as with municipal boundaries. Aboriginal lands are unlikely to span multiple sub-tiles unless they lie on an edge, but cities often cover several sub-tiles. Is converting the boundaries from polygons to linestrings an option? -Original Message- From: Connors, Bernie (SNB) [mailto:bernie.conn...@snb.ca] Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 5:56 AM To: 'Bégin, Daniel'; talk-ca@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Aboriginal Lands If the Aboriginal lands are easily available from another source (GeoBase) and including them in Canvec.osm is going to make the data more complex I think the aboriginal lands should be excluded from Canvec.osm. -- Bernie Connors, P.Eng Service New Brunswick (506) 444-2077 45°56'25.21N, 66°38'53.65W www.snb.ca/geonb/ -Original Message- From: Bégin, Daniel [mailto:daniel.be...@rncan-nrcan.gc.ca] Sent: Tuesday, 2012-02-14 09:05 To: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Aboriginal Lands Bonjour All, Paul propose not to include aboriginal lands in the next Canvec.osm release. I would like to have more feedback from the community before excluding it :-) Regards, Daniel -Original Message- From: Paul Norman [mailto:penor...@mac.com] Sent: February 13, 2012 18:55 To: Bégin, Daniel Cc: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org Subject: RE: [Talk-ca] Aboriginal Lands Then I don't think they should be included in canvec.osm -Original Message- From: Bégin, Daniel [mailto:daniel.be...@rncan-nrcan.gc.ca] Sent: Monday, February 13, 2012 6:04 AM To: Paul Norman Cc: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org Subject: RE: [Talk-ca] Aboriginal Lands Bonjour again Paul, An example is not yet available but yes, it will form closed area split like large lake. That is a limitation of the Canvec.osm product for the moment :-( Daniel -Original Message- From: Paul Norman [mailto:penor...@mac.com] Sent: February 13, 2012 05:35 To: Bégin, Daniel; 'Tyler Gunn'; talk-ca@openstreetmap.org Subject: RE: [Talk-ca] Aboriginal Lands Does this mean that they would form closed areas split like large lakes are? If so, this makes them unsuitable for importing into OSM without significant work. Can we see an example area so that we know what you are proposing? -Original Message- From: Bégin, Daniel [mailto:daniel.be...@rncan-nrcan.gc.ca] Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2012 1:54 PM To: Tyler Gunn; talk-ca@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Aboriginal Lands Bonjour Tyler, Aboriginal Lands are already available in shape and gml format on GeoBase website. It provides a dataset for the entire country. The Canvec product is produced on 50K map sheet coverage. The Aboriginal Lands, if provided through Canvec.osm product, will complied to the 50K map sheet coverage. Best regards, Daniel -Original Message- From: Tyler Gunn [mailto:ty...@egunn.com] Sent: February 9, 2012 16:38 To: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Aboriginal Lands It is possible to include Aboriginal Lands in the next release of Canvec.osm. However, I'm trying to find a consensus in the community concerning the tags/values to use? I've found some links to... - boundary=administrative; admin_level =aboriginal_land - boundary=administrative; admin_level =2 to 4 - boundary=protected_area; protect_class=24 I'm curious how this information would be represented given the distribution of CanVec data in a tiled format? Given that administrative boundaries tend to span larger areas, I don't know if it would make sense to split these at tile boundaries. Were you thinking to provide these boundaries in a separate file of sorts? How these boundaries are represented should perhaps be driven from where they fit into the overall picture in terms of how Canada is split up? When I think of things like the country, provinces, territories, cities/towns/etc, these all fit nicely into the boundary=administrative and admin_level hierarchy. We have separate boundary types for provincial parks, national parks, etc, and I'd probably interpret the aboriginal lands the same way. So I think its entirely reasonable to represent these as: boundary=aboriginal_land Tyler ___ 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 ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Aboriginal Lands
Paul, I understand that the aboriginal lands (if included), and administrative boundary, should be presented as ways, not multipolygons. It is on my duty list! Daniel -Original Message- From: Paul Norman [mailto:penor...@mac.com] Sent: February 14, 2012 15:24 To: 'Connors, Bernie (SNB)'; Bégin, Daniel; talk-ca@openstreetmap.org Subject: RE: [Talk-ca] Aboriginal Lands I'm not so concerned with the aboriginal lands as with municipal boundaries. Aboriginal lands are unlikely to span multiple sub-tiles unless they lie on an edge, but cities often cover several sub-tiles. Is converting the boundaries from polygons to linestrings an option? -Original Message- From: Connors, Bernie (SNB) [mailto:bernie.conn...@snb.ca] Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 5:56 AM To: 'Bégin, Daniel'; talk-ca@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Aboriginal Lands If the Aboriginal lands are easily available from another source (GeoBase) and including them in Canvec.osm is going to make the data more complex I think the aboriginal lands should be excluded from Canvec.osm. -- Bernie Connors, P.Eng Service New Brunswick (506) 444-2077 45°56'25.21N, 66°38'53.65W www.snb.ca/geonb/ -Original Message- From: Bégin, Daniel [mailto:daniel.be...@rncan-nrcan.gc.ca] Sent: Tuesday, 2012-02-14 09:05 To: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Aboriginal Lands Bonjour All, Paul propose not to include aboriginal lands in the next Canvec.osm release. I would like to have more feedback from the community before excluding it :-) Regards, Daniel -Original Message- From: Paul Norman [mailto:penor...@mac.com] Sent: February 13, 2012 18:55 To: Bégin, Daniel Cc: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org Subject: RE: [Talk-ca] Aboriginal Lands Then I don't think they should be included in canvec.osm -Original Message- From: Bégin, Daniel [mailto:daniel.be...@rncan-nrcan.gc.ca] Sent: Monday, February 13, 2012 6:04 AM To: Paul Norman Cc: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org Subject: RE: [Talk-ca] Aboriginal Lands Bonjour again Paul, An example is not yet available but yes, it will form closed area split like large lake. That is a limitation of the Canvec.osm product for the moment :-( Daniel -Original Message- From: Paul Norman [mailto:penor...@mac.com] Sent: February 13, 2012 05:35 To: Bégin, Daniel; 'Tyler Gunn'; talk-ca@openstreetmap.org Subject: RE: [Talk-ca] Aboriginal Lands Does this mean that they would form closed areas split like large lakes are? If so, this makes them unsuitable for importing into OSM without significant work. Can we see an example area so that we know what you are proposing? -Original Message- From: Bégin, Daniel [mailto:daniel.be...@rncan-nrcan.gc.ca] Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2012 1:54 PM To: Tyler Gunn; talk-ca@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Aboriginal Lands Bonjour Tyler, Aboriginal Lands are already available in shape and gml format on GeoBase website. It provides a dataset for the entire country. The Canvec product is produced on 50K map sheet coverage. The Aboriginal Lands, if provided through Canvec.osm product, will complied to the 50K map sheet coverage. Best regards, Daniel -Original Message- From: Tyler Gunn [mailto:ty...@egunn.com] Sent: February 9, 2012 16:38 To: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Aboriginal Lands It is possible to include Aboriginal Lands in the next release of Canvec.osm. However, I'm trying to find a consensus in the community concerning the tags/values to use? I've found some links to... - boundary=administrative; admin_level =aboriginal_land - boundary=administrative; admin_level =2 to 4 - boundary=protected_area; protect_class=24 I'm curious how this information would be represented given the distribution of CanVec data in a tiled format? Given that administrative boundaries tend to span larger areas, I don't know if it would make sense to split these at tile boundaries. Were you thinking to provide these boundaries in a separate file of sorts? How these boundaries are represented should perhaps be driven from where they fit into the overall picture in terms of how Canada is split up? When I think of things like the country, provinces, territories, cities/towns/etc, these all fit nicely into the boundary=administrative and admin_level hierarchy. We have separate boundary types for provincial parks, national parks, etc, and I'd probably interpret the aboriginal lands the same way. So I think its entirely reasonable to represent these as: boundary=aboriginal_land Tyler ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-ca] Aboriginal Lands
Does this mean that they would form closed areas split like large lakes are? If so, this makes them unsuitable for importing into OSM without significant work. Can we see an example area so that we know what you are proposing? -Original Message- From: Bégin, Daniel [mailto:daniel.be...@rncan-nrcan.gc.ca] Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2012 1:54 PM To: Tyler Gunn; talk-ca@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Aboriginal Lands Bonjour Tyler, Aboriginal Lands are already available in shape and gml format on GeoBase website. It provides a dataset for the entire country. The Canvec product is produced on 50K map sheet coverage. The Aboriginal Lands, if provided through Canvec.osm product, will complied to the 50K map sheet coverage. Best regards, Daniel -Original Message- From: Tyler Gunn [mailto:ty...@egunn.com] Sent: February 9, 2012 16:38 To: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Aboriginal Lands It is possible to include Aboriginal Lands in the next release of Canvec.osm. However, I'm trying to find a consensus in the community concerning the tags/values to use? I've found some links to... - boundary=administrative; admin_level =aboriginal_land - boundary=administrative; admin_level =2 to 4 - boundary=protected_area; protect_class=24 I'm curious how this information would be represented given the distribution of CanVec data in a tiled format? Given that administrative boundaries tend to span larger areas, I don't know if it would make sense to split these at tile boundaries. Were you thinking to provide these boundaries in a separate file of sorts? How these boundaries are represented should perhaps be driven from where they fit into the overall picture in terms of how Canada is split up? When I think of things like the country, provinces, territories, cities/towns/etc, these all fit nicely into the boundary=administrative and admin_level hierarchy. We have separate boundary types for provincial parks, national parks, etc, and I'd probably interpret the aboriginal lands the same way. So I think its entirely reasonable to represent these as: boundary=aboriginal_land Tyler ___ 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
Re: [Talk-ca] Aboriginal Lands
Bonjour again Paul, An example is not yet available but yes, it will form closed area split like large lake. That is a limitation of the Canvec.osm product for the moment :-( Daniel -Original Message- From: Paul Norman [mailto:penor...@mac.com] Sent: February 13, 2012 05:35 To: Bégin, Daniel; 'Tyler Gunn'; talk-ca@openstreetmap.org Subject: RE: [Talk-ca] Aboriginal Lands Does this mean that they would form closed areas split like large lakes are? If so, this makes them unsuitable for importing into OSM without significant work. Can we see an example area so that we know what you are proposing? -Original Message- From: Bégin, Daniel [mailto:daniel.be...@rncan-nrcan.gc.ca] Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2012 1:54 PM To: Tyler Gunn; talk-ca@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Aboriginal Lands Bonjour Tyler, Aboriginal Lands are already available in shape and gml format on GeoBase website. It provides a dataset for the entire country. The Canvec product is produced on 50K map sheet coverage. The Aboriginal Lands, if provided through Canvec.osm product, will complied to the 50K map sheet coverage. Best regards, Daniel -Original Message- From: Tyler Gunn [mailto:ty...@egunn.com] Sent: February 9, 2012 16:38 To: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Aboriginal Lands It is possible to include Aboriginal Lands in the next release of Canvec.osm. However, I'm trying to find a consensus in the community concerning the tags/values to use? I've found some links to... - boundary=administrative; admin_level =aboriginal_land - boundary=administrative; admin_level =2 to 4 - boundary=protected_area; protect_class=24 I'm curious how this information would be represented given the distribution of CanVec data in a tiled format? Given that administrative boundaries tend to span larger areas, I don't know if it would make sense to split these at tile boundaries. Were you thinking to provide these boundaries in a separate file of sorts? How these boundaries are represented should perhaps be driven from where they fit into the overall picture in terms of how Canada is split up? When I think of things like the country, provinces, territories, cities/towns/etc, these all fit nicely into the boundary=administrative and admin_level hierarchy. We have separate boundary types for provincial parks, national parks, etc, and I'd probably interpret the aboriginal lands the same way. So I think its entirely reasonable to represent these as: boundary=aboriginal_land Tyler ___ 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
Re: [Talk-ca] Aboriginal Lands
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 8:03 AM, Bégin, Daniel daniel.be...@rncan-nrcan.gc.ca wrote: Bonjour again Paul, An example is not yet available but yes, it will form closed area split like large lake. That is a limitation of the Canvec.osm product for the moment :-( With wooded areas and lakes I've noticed we tend to just leave them un-merged. I can imagine for boundaries we'd like to have them merged, especially considering they'd be spanning many tiles. I can see a few ways to approach this from the OSM side of things: 1. Do our own conversion of the data Canvec uses as its source and bulk-import it all in one shot. 2. Develop a tool to help merge the imported boundary areas which are split among multiple tiles. For option 2 I've always had it in my mind that we either need a standalone tool or a JOSM plugin to support an automated merge of the large lake and wooded multipolygons. The same approach could work for boundary areas. Tyler ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Aboriginal Lands
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 08:37:17AM -0600, Tyler Gunn wrote: With wooded areas and lakes I've noticed we tend to just leave them un-merged. I can imagine for boundaries we'd like to have them merged, especially considering they'd be spanning many tiles. This begs the question: are there any reasons to merge areas like wooded areas or lakes that are broken up? Any reason NOT to merge them? -- James (Jay) Treacy tre...@debian.org ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Aboriginal Lands
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 9:48 AM, James A. Treacy tre...@debian.org wrote: On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 08:37:17AM -0600, Tyler Gunn wrote: With wooded areas and lakes I've noticed we tend to just leave them un-merged. I can imagine for boundaries we'd like to have them merged, especially considering they'd be spanning many tiles. This begs the question: are there any reasons to merge areas like wooded areas or lakes that are broken up? Any reason NOT to merge them? For wooded areas and other natural features, I think this is largely a cosmetic issue. The argument of should a wooded area be split in two where a road passes? is an old one, and unsettled. Also the original digitization of wooded areas may seem arbitrary when compared to more-recent aerial imagery or local knowledge. All of this means that you would have to be crazy to expect a sensible answer to how many wooded areas are within $boundary So, for the above natural features, I'm happy to see mappers do either; leave them separate or merge them. As long as mappers don't edit-war over it. :-) For admin areas I think that the situation is clearer. A data user would expect a sensible answer to how many cities are within $boundary? Having two or more admin boundary polygons, adjacent and equal in admin level and name would provide an unexpected result if that bifurcation was the result of an arbitrary NTS boundary. So, I prefer admin boundaries to be merged if they are split by arbitrary NTS boundaries. This is not an impeachment of the CanVec product. It is just a matter that we have to resolve to use CanVec effectively in OSM. If one cares sufficiently to include a municipal boundary from CanVec in OSM, one should care enough to include it in the best way that you know how. :-) ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Aboriginal Lands
From: James A. Treacy [tre...@debian.org], Monday, February 13, 2012 9:48 AM: This begs the question: are there any reasons to merge areas like wooded areas or lakes that are broken up? I find the fine grid that shows up on Mapnik at lower zoom levels to be pretty irritating (e.g. http://osm.org/go/cI_pjS-- ). It took me quite some time to realize that they were the result of Canvec tile borders and didn't have any actual meaning. I therefore tend to merge wooded areas and lakes, as long as it's not too much work (i.e. having to join two multipolygons). Best, Harald. ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Aboriginal Lands
Then I don't think they should be included in canvec.osm -Original Message- From: Bégin, Daniel [mailto:daniel.be...@rncan-nrcan.gc.ca] Sent: Monday, February 13, 2012 6:04 AM To: Paul Norman Cc: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org Subject: RE: [Talk-ca] Aboriginal Lands Bonjour again Paul, An example is not yet available but yes, it will form closed area split like large lake. That is a limitation of the Canvec.osm product for the moment :-( Daniel -Original Message- From: Paul Norman [mailto:penor...@mac.com] Sent: February 13, 2012 05:35 To: Bégin, Daniel; 'Tyler Gunn'; talk-ca@openstreetmap.org Subject: RE: [Talk-ca] Aboriginal Lands Does this mean that they would form closed areas split like large lakes are? If so, this makes them unsuitable for importing into OSM without significant work. Can we see an example area so that we know what you are proposing? -Original Message- From: Bégin, Daniel [mailto:daniel.be...@rncan-nrcan.gc.ca] Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2012 1:54 PM To: Tyler Gunn; talk-ca@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Aboriginal Lands Bonjour Tyler, Aboriginal Lands are already available in shape and gml format on GeoBase website. It provides a dataset for the entire country. The Canvec product is produced on 50K map sheet coverage. The Aboriginal Lands, if provided through Canvec.osm product, will complied to the 50K map sheet coverage. Best regards, Daniel -Original Message- From: Tyler Gunn [mailto:ty...@egunn.com] Sent: February 9, 2012 16:38 To: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Aboriginal Lands It is possible to include Aboriginal Lands in the next release of Canvec.osm. However, I'm trying to find a consensus in the community concerning the tags/values to use? I've found some links to... - boundary=administrative; admin_level =aboriginal_land - boundary=administrative; admin_level =2 to 4 - boundary=protected_area; protect_class=24 I'm curious how this information would be represented given the distribution of CanVec data in a tiled format? Given that administrative boundaries tend to span larger areas, I don't know if it would make sense to split these at tile boundaries. Were you thinking to provide these boundaries in a separate file of sorts? How these boundaries are represented should perhaps be driven from where they fit into the overall picture in terms of how Canada is split up? When I think of things like the country, provinces, territories, cities/towns/etc, these all fit nicely into the boundary=administrative and admin_level hierarchy. We have separate boundary types for provincial parks, national parks, etc, and I'd probably interpret the aboriginal lands the same way. So I think its entirely reasonable to represent these as: boundary=aboriginal_land Tyler ___ 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
Re: [Talk-ca] Aboriginal Lands
From: James A. Treacy [mailto:tre...@debian.org] Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Aboriginal Lands On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 08:37:17AM -0600, Tyler Gunn wrote: With wooded areas and lakes I've noticed we tend to just leave them un-merged. I can imagine for boundaries we'd like to have them merged, especially considering they'd be spanning many tiles. This begs the question: are there any reasons to merge areas like wooded areas or lakes that are broken up? Any reason NOT to merge them? If you merge too many you end up with un-maintainable multipolygons that bog down the renderer. I merge lakes but not woods since in BC the woods never stop ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Aboriginal Lands
For tagging Aboriginal lands (reserves) I agree with using boundary=aboriginal_land. -- Bernie Connors, P.Eng Service New Brunswick (506) 444-2077 45°56'25.21N, 66°38'53.65W www.snb.ca/geonb/ -Original Message- From: Tyler Gunn [mailto:ty...@egunn.com] Sent: Thursday, 2012-02-09 17:38 To: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Aboriginal Lands It is possible to include Aboriginal Lands in the next release of Canvec.osm. However, I'm trying to find a consensus in the community concerning the tags/values to use? I've found some links to. - boundary=administrative; admin_level =aboriginal_land - boundary=administrative; admin_level =2 to 4 - boundary=protected_area; protect_class=24 I'm curious how this information would be represented given the distribution of CanVec data in a tiled format? Given that administrative boundaries tend to span larger areas, I don't know if it would make sense to split these at tile boundaries. Were you thinking to provide these boundaries in a separate file of sorts? How these boundaries are represented should perhaps be driven from where they fit into the overall picture in terms of how Canada is split up? When I think of things like the country, provinces, territories, cities/towns/etc, these all fit nicely into the boundary=administrative and admin_level hierarchy. We have separate boundary types for provincial parks, national parks, etc, and I'd probably interpret the aboriginal lands the same way. So I think its entirely reasonable to represent these as: boundary=aboriginal_land Tyler ___ 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] Aboriginal Lands
Bonjour! It is possible to include Aboriginal Lands in the next release of Canvec.osm. However, I'm trying to find a consensus in the community concerning the tags/values to use? I've found some links to... - boundary=administrative; admin_level =aboriginal_land - boundary=administrative; admin_level =2 to 4 - boundary=protected_area; protect_class=24 Waiting for comments Thanks Daniel Bégin Centre d'information topographique de Sherbrooke Topographic Information Center of Sherbrooke Ressources Naturelles Canada / Natural Ressources Canada 2144, rue King Ouest, bureau 010 Sherbrooke (Québec) J1J 2E8 (819) 564-5600 ext.242, dbe...@nrcan.gc.ca ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Aboriginal Lands
It is possible to include Aboriginal Lands in the next release of Canvec.osm. However, I'm trying to find a consensus in the community concerning the tags/values to use? I've found some links to… - boundary=administrative; admin_level =aboriginal_land - boundary=administrative; admin_level =2 to 4 - boundary=protected_area; protect_class=24 I'm curious how this information would be represented given the distribution of CanVec data in a tiled format? Given that administrative boundaries tend to span larger areas, I don't know if it would make sense to split these at tile boundaries. Were you thinking to provide these boundaries in a separate file of sorts? How these boundaries are represented should perhaps be driven from where they fit into the overall picture in terms of how Canada is split up? When I think of things like the country, provinces, territories, cities/towns/etc, these all fit nicely into the boundary=administrative and admin_level hierarchy. We have separate boundary types for provincial parks, national parks, etc, and I'd probably interpret the aboriginal lands the same way. So I think its entirely reasonable to represent these as: boundary=aboriginal_land Tyler ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Aboriginal Lands
Bonjour Tyler, Aboriginal Lands are already available in shape and gml format on GeoBase website. It provides a dataset for the entire country. The Canvec product is produced on 50K map sheet coverage. The Aboriginal Lands, if provided through Canvec.osm product, will complied to the 50K map sheet coverage. Best regards, Daniel -Original Message- From: Tyler Gunn [mailto:ty...@egunn.com] Sent: February 9, 2012 16:38 To: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Aboriginal Lands It is possible to include Aboriginal Lands in the next release of Canvec.osm. However, I'm trying to find a consensus in the community concerning the tags/values to use? I've found some links to... - boundary=administrative; admin_level =aboriginal_land - boundary=administrative; admin_level =2 to 4 - boundary=protected_area; protect_class=24 I'm curious how this information would be represented given the distribution of CanVec data in a tiled format? Given that administrative boundaries tend to span larger areas, I don't know if it would make sense to split these at tile boundaries. Were you thinking to provide these boundaries in a separate file of sorts? How these boundaries are represented should perhaps be driven from where they fit into the overall picture in terms of how Canada is split up? When I think of things like the country, provinces, territories, cities/towns/etc, these all fit nicely into the boundary=administrative and admin_level hierarchy. We have separate boundary types for provincial parks, national parks, etc, and I'd probably interpret the aboriginal lands the same way. So I think its entirely reasonable to represent these as: boundary=aboriginal_land Tyler ___ 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] Aboriginal Lands
If the aboriginal lands are the same as were previously imported in BC I don't think they're really suitable for use. A single reserve is split up into much smaller areas at each of the roads. While I'm sure this is legally correct, it's not much use for mapping. I think boundary=aboriginal_land is the best tagging for them. It might be worth talking with talk-us@ as well for the exact value - reserves in the US are similar to those in Canada. -Original Message- From: Bégin, Daniel [mailto:daniel.be...@rncan-nrcan.gc.ca] Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2012 1:54 PM To: Tyler Gunn; talk-ca@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Aboriginal Lands Bonjour Tyler, Aboriginal Lands are already available in shape and gml format on GeoBase website. It provides a dataset for the entire country. The Canvec product is produced on 50K map sheet coverage. The Aboriginal Lands, if provided through Canvec.osm product, will complied to the 50K map sheet coverage. Best regards, Daniel -Original Message- From: Tyler Gunn [mailto:ty...@egunn.com] Sent: February 9, 2012 16:38 To: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Aboriginal Lands It is possible to include Aboriginal Lands in the next release of Canvec.osm. However, I'm trying to find a consensus in the community concerning the tags/values to use? I've found some links to... - boundary=administrative; admin_level =aboriginal_land - boundary=administrative; admin_level =2 to 4 - boundary=protected_area; protect_class=24 I'm curious how this information would be represented given the distribution of CanVec data in a tiled format? Given that administrative boundaries tend to span larger areas, I don't know if it would make sense to split these at tile boundaries. Were you thinking to provide these boundaries in a separate file of sorts? How these boundaries are represented should perhaps be driven from where they fit into the overall picture in terms of how Canada is split up? When I think of things like the country, provinces, territories, cities/towns/etc, these all fit nicely into the boundary=administrative and admin_level hierarchy. We have separate boundary types for provincial parks, national parks, etc, and I'd probably interpret the aboriginal lands the same way. So I think its entirely reasonable to represent these as: boundary=aboriginal_land Tyler ___ 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
