Re: [Talk-ca] CanVec natural=land tags and untagged ways
Bonjour Samuel, Adam, and all. The purpose of the island conversion from area into point was to maintain toponyms without having the problem caused by natural=island tag for areas Your question just make me realised I should have simply removed island areas when there were no toponyms attached to it! I should be able to correct it for the next release. Best regards, Daniel From: Samuel Longiaru [mailto:longi...@shaw.ca] Sent: May 18, 2011 11:53 To: Adam Dunn Cc: talk-ca Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] CanVec natural=land tags and untagged ways Adam is correct here in that the natural=land tags I was talking about are on single nodes on islands in lakes. All have had a way surrounding them tagged as inner. None of the nodes that I have come across and deleted have had a name tag attached and so didn't seem to be serving any purpose. The name thing is good to know though and so I will be sure to check to see if any other tag is attached to them before deleting. Sam Original Message- From: Adam Dunn dunna...@gmail.com mailto:adam%20dunn%20%3cdunna...@gmail.com%3e To: Bégin, Daniel daniel.be...@rncan-nrcan.gc.ca mailto:%3d%3fiso-8859-1%3fq%3fb%3de9gin%3d2c%3f%3d%20daniel%20%3cdaniel.be...@rncan-nrcan.gc.ca%3e Cc: Samuel Longiaru longi...@shaw.ca mailto:samuel%20longiaru%20%3clongi...@shaw.ca%3e , talk-ca talk-ca@openstreetmap.org mailto:talk-ca%20%3ctalk...@openstreetmap.org%3e Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] CanVec natural=land tags and untagged ways Date: Wed, 18 May 2011 08:38:48 -0700 The natural=island tag that Daniel is referring to used to be applied to the way of the island. This is the old way of doing things (pre-Canvec 7). I think the natural=land tag that Samuel is referring to is a single node at the centre of the island (Canvec 7). The natural=land node is there for the purpose of retaining toponymy (naming). Many islands don't have names and you can just delete the node, but some of these nodes will have the name of the island, so you should either keep the node or transfer the name of the island over to the island's outer way. For water body relations (not coastal), it is sufficient to have just a closed inner way polygon; you don't need a natural=land tag (or any other tags). I'm not that experienced with coastal tagging, but I think having a way going the correct direction around the island and tagged as natural=coastline is how to tag an island in the ocean/sea. One shouldn't need a natural=land in that case either (in fact, according to the wiki, having natural=land as the sole tag on a costal island is not the correct way of doing things [1]). The two cases where natural=land is required is when the island is only a node (too small to be a way polygon), or when you aren't using relations and need to have an island way polygon (but this is obsoleted by using relations). I thought the tagless ghost ways were a byproduct of how JOSM deletes relations, I didn't know it was part of the Canvec export's construction. They can be tossed. Adam ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
[Talk-ca] CanVec natural=land tags and untagged ways
Good morning everyone, I've been working for the last couple of months importing Canvec data into south-central BC and have almost completed the eastern half of 92I. I also have been lurking on the MkGMap list and one of the comments there today got me thinking that maybe I've been doing something wrong. Just wanted to get some comment here if I might. I can go back and fix things if need be. The procedure I have been using for importing is essentially a reflection of what I would normally do should I be mapping an area from scratch. I select a feature like wood, wetland, water, etc. from my CanVec data layer, check it against the existing OSM, merge where appropriate and delete the feature from my CanVec data layer so I can keep track of what I have done. At the end of this process, I am usually left with a couple of things in the CanVec layer which I discard. For example, after merging wood, I delete it from the CanVec layer and in many cases am left with another untagged way that follows the wood boundary. This way has no tags at all and is not part of any relationship. As it normally would not be present should I have just traced the wood using Potlatch or JOSM, I delete it and do not import it into OSM. I have also been ignoring the natural=land tags that appear on islands in lakes. I have not been importing this tag since if I understand things correctly, it is sufficient to have islands tagged only as inner members of relationships. As a check, I have gone back and examined the rendered OSM maps, and all wood and islands are rendering correctly. I have also imported some of my imported CanVec data into my Garmin Nuvi through Lambertus's site and all render correctly as well. In response to a query on the MkGMap list as to why oceans were not rendering as blue on someone's Garmin (I have this problem too by the way) the comment was made that islands needed to be tagged as natural=land. I'm not sure that is actually the case but it did get me thinking about the island tags I have been discarding and the other superfluous CanVec data I have also been tossing. Is it OK to toss these natural=land tags? And what is going on with these ghost ways that appear under under the boundaries to wooded areas? OK to toss them as well? ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] CanVec natural=land tags and untagged ways
Hi Samuel, about a year ago, I removed natural=island ways from the Canvec data. Unless I'm confused (it appends sometime !-) it was applied for Release 7... The problem was that islands were/are overlaying all other features on rendering, including corresponding natural=wood features (ie : wooded islands renders white spot instead of green) If you still have natural=island features you should be in an area where the Release 7 could not be produced (about 30 files for the country) About the ghost ways, it was decided to create the Canvec product that way to ease partial/layer import (for example, import hydrography without wooded areas). However, once you have modified the data to merge both features, I don't see the need to keep ghost ways. Regards, Daniel From: Samuel Longiaru [mailto:longi...@shaw.ca] Sent: May 18, 2011 09:42 To: talk-ca Subject: [Talk-ca] CanVec natural=land tags and untagged ways Good morning everyone, I've been working for the last couple of months importing Canvec data into south-central BC and have almost completed the eastern half of 92I. I also have been lurking on the MkGMap list and one of the comments there today got me thinking that maybe I've been doing something wrong. Just wanted to get some comment here if I might. I can go back and fix things if need be. The procedure I have been using for importing is essentially a reflection of what I would normally do should I be mapping an area from scratch. I select a feature like wood, wetland, water, etc. from my CanVec data layer, check it against the existing OSM, merge where appropriate and delete the feature from my CanVec data layer so I can keep track of what I have done. At the end of this process, I am usually left with a couple of things in the CanVec layer which I discard. For example, after merging wood, I delete it from the CanVec layer and in many cases am left with another untagged way that follows the wood boundary. This way has no tags at all and is not part of any relationship. As it normally would not be present should I have just traced the wood using Potlatch or JOSM, I delete it and do not import it into OSM. I have also been ignoring the natural=land tags that appear on islands in lakes. I have not been importing this tag since if I understand things correctly, it is sufficient to have islands tagged only as inner members of relationships. As a check, I have gone back and examined the rendered OSM maps, and all wood and islands are rendering correctly. I have also imported some of my imported CanVec data into my Garmin Nuvi through Lambertus's site and all render correctly as well. In response to a query on the MkGMap list as to why oceans were not rendering as blue on someone's Garmin (I have this problem too by the way) the comment was made that islands needed to be tagged as natural=land. I'm not sure that is actually the case but it did get me thinking about the island tags I have been discarding and the other superfluous CanVec data I have also been tossing. Is it OK to toss these natural=land tags? And what is going on with these ghost ways that appear under under the boundaries to wooded areas? OK to toss them as well? ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] CanVec natural=land tags and untagged ways
The natural=island tag that Daniel is referring to used to be applied to the way of the island. This is the old way of doing things (pre-Canvec 7). I think the natural=land tag that Samuel is referring to is a single node at the centre of the island (Canvec 7). The natural=land node is there for the purpose of retaining toponymy (naming). Many islands don't have names and you can just delete the node, but some of these nodes will have the name of the island, so you should either keep the node or transfer the name of the island over to the island's outer way. For water body relations (not coastal), it is sufficient to have just a closed inner way polygon; you don't need a natural=land tag (or any other tags). I'm not that experienced with coastal tagging, but I think having a way going the correct direction around the island and tagged as natural=coastline is how to tag an island in the ocean/sea. One shouldn't need a natural=land in that case either (in fact, according to the wiki, having natural=land as the sole tag on a costal island is not the correct way of doing things [1]). The two cases where natural=land is required is when the island is only a node (too small to be a way polygon), or when you aren't using relations and need to have an island way polygon (but this is obsoleted by using relations). I thought the tagless ghost ways were a byproduct of how JOSM deletes relations, I didn't know it was part of the Canvec export's construction. They can be tossed. Adam On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 7:25 AM, Bégin, Daniel daniel.be...@rncan-nrcan.gc.ca wrote: Hi Samuel, about a year ago, I removed natural=island ways from the Canvec data. Unless I'm confused (it appends sometime !-) it was applied for Release 7... The problem was that islands were/are overlaying all other features on rendering, including corresponding natural=wood features (ie : wooded islands renders white spot instead of green) If you still have natural=island features you should be in an area where the Release 7 could not be produced (about 30 files for the country) About the ghost ways, it was decided to create the Canvec product that way to ease partial/layer import (for example, import hydrography without wooded areas). However, once you have modified the data to merge both features, I don't see the need to keep ghost ways. Regards, Daniel From: Samuel Longiaru [mailto:longi...@shaw.ca] Sent: May 18, 2011 09:42 To: talk-ca Subject: [Talk-ca] CanVec natural=land tags and untagged ways Good morning everyone, I've been working for the last couple of months importing Canvec data into south-central BC and have almost completed the eastern half of 92I. I also have been lurking on the MkGMap list and one of the comments there today got me thinking that maybe I've been doing something wrong. Just wanted to get some comment here if I might. I can go back and fix things if need be. The procedure I have been using for importing is essentially a reflection of what I would normally do should I be mapping an area from scratch. I select a feature like wood, wetland, water, etc. from my CanVec data layer, check it against the existing OSM, merge where appropriate and delete the feature from my CanVec data layer so I can keep track of what I have done. At the end of this process, I am usually left with a couple of things in the CanVec layer which I discard. For example, after merging wood, I delete it from the CanVec layer and in many cases am left with another untagged way that follows the wood boundary. This way has no tags at all and is not part of any relationship. As it normally would not be present should I have just traced the wood using Potlatch or JOSM, I delete it and do not import it into OSM. I have also been ignoring the natural=land tags that appear on islands in lakes. I have not been importing this tag since if I understand things correctly, it is sufficient to have islands tagged only as inner members of relationships. As a check, I have gone back and examined the rendered OSM maps, and all wood and islands are rendering correctly. I have also imported some of my imported CanVec data into my Garmin Nuvi through Lambertus's site and all render correctly as well. In response to a query on the MkGMap list as to why oceans were not rendering as blue on someone's Garmin (I have this problem too by the way) the comment was made that islands needed to be tagged as natural=land. I'm not sure that is actually the case but it did get me thinking about the island tags I have been discarding and the other superfluous CanVec data I have also been tossing. Is it OK to toss these natural=land tags? And what is going on with these ghost ways that appear under under the boundaries to wooded areas? OK to toss them as well? ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http
Re: [Talk-ca] CanVec natural=land tags and untagged ways
Adam is correct here in that the natural=land tags I was talking about are on single nodes on islands in lakes. All have had a way surrounding them tagged as inner. None of the nodes that I have come across and deleted have had a name tag attached and so didn't seem to be serving any purpose. The name thing is good to know though and so I will be sure to check to see if any other tag is attached to them before deleting. Sam Original Message- From: Adam Dunn dunna...@gmail.com To: Bégin, Daniel daniel.be...@rncan-nrcan.gc.ca Cc: Samuel Longiaru longi...@shaw.ca, talk-ca talk-ca@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] CanVec natural=land tags and untagged ways Date: Wed, 18 May 2011 08:38:48 -0700 The natural=island tag that Daniel is referring to used to be applied to the way of the island. This is the old way of doing things (pre-Canvec 7). I think the natural=land tag that Samuel is referring to is a single node at the centre of the island (Canvec 7). The natural=land node is there for the purpose of retaining toponymy (naming). Many islands don't have names and you can just delete the node, but some of these nodes will have the name of the island, so you should either keep the node or transfer the name of the island over to the island's outer way. For water body relations (not coastal), it is sufficient to have just a closed inner way polygon; you don't need a natural=land tag (or any other tags). I'm not that experienced with coastal tagging, but I think having a way going the correct direction around the island and tagged as natural=coastline is how to tag an island in the ocean/sea. One shouldn't need a natural=land in that case either (in fact, according to the wiki, having natural=land as the sole tag on a costal island is not the correct way of doing things [1]). The two cases where natural=land is required is when the island is only a node (too small to be a way polygon), or when you aren't using relations and need to have an island way polygon (but this is obsoleted by using relations). I thought the tagless ghost ways were a byproduct of how JOSM deletes relations, I didn't know it was part of the Canvec export's construction. They can be tossed. Adam ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] CanVec natural=land tags and untagged ways
OK Daniel... thank you for the information and the reasoning behind it. It seems that at least in the areas I've been importing, all is working correctly in regards to the islands and wood, even the wooded islands without the use of the natural=land tags. This area also renders correctly on my Garmin with the data having gone through MkGMap and so the tags seems to be correct for that process as well. Thanks, Sam -Original Message- From: Bégin, Daniel daniel.be...@rncan-nrcan.gc.ca To: Samuel Longiaru longi...@shaw.ca, talk-ca talk-ca@openstreetmap.org Subject: RE: [Talk-ca] CanVec natural=land tags and untagged ways Date: Wed, 18 May 2011 10:25:10 -0400 Hi Samuel, about a year ago, I removed natural=island ways from the Canvec data. Unless I'm confused (it appends sometime !-) it was applied for Release 7... The problem was that islands were/are overlaying all other features on rendering, including corresponding natural=wood features (ie : wooded islands renders white spot instead of green) If you still have natural=island features you should be in an area where the Release 7 could not be produced (about 30 files for the country) About the ghost ways, it was decided to create the Canvec product that way to ease partial/layer import (for example, import hydrography without wooded areas). However, once you have modified the data to merge both features, I don't see the need to keep ghost ways. Regards, Daniel From: Samuel Longiaru [mailto:longi...@shaw.ca] Sent: May 18, 2011 09:42 To: talk-ca Subject: [Talk-ca] CanVec natural=land tags and untagged ways Good morning everyone, I've been working for the last couple of months importing Canvec data into south-central BC and have almost completed the eastern half of 92I. I also have been lurking on the MkGMap list and one of the comments there today got me thinking that maybe I've been doing something wrong. Just wanted to get some comment here if I might. I can go back and fix things if need be. The procedure I have been using for importing is essentially a reflection of what I would normally do should I be mapping an area from scratch. I select a feature like wood, wetland, water, etc. from my CanVec data layer, check it against the existing OSM, merge where appropriate and delete the feature from my CanVec data layer so I can keep track of what I have done. At the end of this process, I am usually left with a couple of things in the CanVec layer which I discard. For example, after merging wood, I delete it from the CanVec layer and in many cases am left with another untagged way that follows the wood boundary. This way has no tags at all and is not part of any relationship. As it normally would not be present should I have just traced the wood using Potlatch or JOSM, I delete it and do not import it into OSM. I have also been ignoring the natural=land tags that appear on islands in lakes. I have not been importing this tag since if I understand things correctly, it is sufficient to have islands tagged only as inner members of relationships. As a check, I have gone back and examined the rendered OSM maps, and all wood and islands are rendering correctly. I have also imported some of my imported CanVec data into my Garmin Nuvi through Lambertus's site and all render correctly as well. In response to a query on the MkGMap list as to why oceans were not rendering as blue on someone's Garmin (I have this problem too by the way) the comment was made that islands needed to be tagged as natural=land. I'm not sure that is actually the case but it did get me thinking about the island tags I have been discarding and the other superfluous CanVec data I have also been tossing. Is it OK to toss these natural=land tags? And what is going on with these ghost ways that appear under under the boundaries to wooded areas? OK to toss them as well? ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
