Re: [Talk-ca] Forests/Land Use, was: Canvec reverts

[Pierre Béland]

Hi Frederik,

I prefer to discuss with the community and find solutions. And we have to 
understand what is the reality of certain countries, try to help the 
contributors and avoid ultimatums, more or less intimidation ("I dont bother 
what you did, I will press the button and erase everything"). We should not 
encourage such inflammatory behaviors.
I would like that contributors from other countries do not come as  preachers 
of orthodoxy with no flexibility but come with a constructive spirit and 
propose ways to respond to the challenge of mapping such huge areas while 
improving the quality of the data.   

See a comparison map of Germany with north of Quebec 
http://thetruesize.com/#?borders=1~!MTUyMzYyMTg.MTM3MDg4NTc*MTQwOTk4NTg(ODE3MTYzNg~!DE*NTE2Nzg1Ng.MTMwNDIzOTY)MA
Germany is about half the size of north of Quebec where 35 000 people live in 
isolated habitats. Germany is probably 10 to 20 times smaller then northern 
areas of Canada. I dont know the official population size but probably in the 
range 250,000 - 500,000 people.
The map, the tools, the procedures to enhance the map should not be only 
thought for dense urbanised areas in Europe or southern parts of Canada, USA, 
etc.
I would say that you propose a Police intimidating contributors with  "If we 
are not satisfied of the quality of your work - and we dont want to listen to 
the canadian community - we will press the button and destruct everything."
Please, we should keep Star Wars games spirit outside of OSM and work with more 
harmony and respect.

If people have finished developping the map in their country, and look for 
challenges, they should do it with a positive behavior that respect OSM 
volonteers. If we can develop tools to spy canadian contributors changesets and 
diligently revert / destroy their efforts, we should surely be able to produce 
more productive tools to help this community and other similar communities to 
enhance the map.
Personnaly, I think that we have to be careful if we want to develop 
communities and build a better map to avoid inflammatory language and 
destructive actions. Community engagement this requires to respect volunteers, 
to give them the feeling that they are part of a community, that we are 
listening to them, that we are ready to support them.

regard  
Pierre 


  De : Frederik Ramm <frede...@remote.org>
 À : talk-ca@openstreetmap.org 
 Envoyé le : vendredi 2 Septembre 2016 16h02
 Objet : Re: [Talk-ca] Forests/Land Use, was: Canvec reverts
   
Hi,

On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 11:27 AM, Adam Martin wrote:
> That is the key here. Deleting information without replacing it with
> something more accurate is inherently destructive. There must be
> some thought as to what will be put back or one is essentially
> ripping the map up simply because you don't like how something looks
> or how it closely it follows a given rule.

On a general note, edits *have* been reverted in the past for the simple
reason of not following a given rule, without looking at whether the
edit improved the visuals or not.

For "normal mappers", OSM ususally encourages them to map what they can
or know - no need to do it perfectly. Even a street drawn from memory
("I know I took a left here and then popped out onto XY road later, so
let me pencil in that road...) is ok for manual mapping.

For imports, we expect a certain minimum quality and if the importer
cannot produce that then we ask them to simply hold off the import until
they (or someone else) can.

The reason for the difference in approaches is that a productive
importer can import data in one day that takes several person-years to
fix and that will even have a detrimental effect on manual mapping of
other features (what Paul Ramsey writes further down-thread), whereas
imperfect data contributed by normal mappers comes at a rate where it is
realistic to assume that other normal mappers can fix it.

Data imports can have a negative effect on map quality (not even talking
of community engagement). "It looks nice on the map" can be a
treacherous criterion; beneath the surfaceit can still be rubbish, and
rubbish should not be imported into OSM even if it looks nice.

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

___
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] Forests/Land Use, was: Canvec reverts

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 11:27 AM, Adam Martin wrote:
> That is the key here. Deleting information without replacing it with
> something more accurate is inherently destructive. There must be
> some thought as to what will be put back or one is essentially
> ripping the map up simply because you don't like how something looks
> or how it closely it follows a given rule.

On a general note, edits *have* been reverted in the past for the simple
reason of not following a given rule, without looking at whether the
edit improved the visuals or not.

For "normal mappers", OSM ususally encourages them to map what they can
or know - no need to do it perfectly. Even a street drawn from memory
("I know I took a left here and then popped out onto XY road later, so
let me pencil in that road...) is ok for manual mapping.

For imports, we expect a certain minimum quality and if the importer
cannot produce that then we ask them to simply hold off the import until
they (or someone else) can.

The reason for the difference in approaches is that a productive
importer can import data in one day that takes several person-years to
fix and that will even have a detrimental effect on manual mapping of
other features (what Paul Ramsey writes further down-thread), whereas
imperfect data contributed by normal mappers comes at a rate where it is
realistic to assume that other normal mappers can fix it.

Data imports can have a negative effect on map quality (not even talking
of community engagement). "It looks nice on the map" can be a
treacherous criterion; beneath the surfaceit can still be rubbish, and
rubbish should not be imported into OSM even if it looks nice.

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

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

Re: [Talk-ca] Forests/Land Use, was: Canvec reverts

[Paul Norman]

On 9/1/2016 1:22 PM, Paul Ramsey wrote:
I'm not sure I agree. "Better than nothing" I guess is the principle, 
but when what is there (not nothing) gets in the way of improving 
other features, then it's not better than nothing. And what if what's 
there is, from an information point of view, basically nothing?


Like the forests polygons that basically do nothing to delineate where 
forests actually are (or residential polygons with same issue?) "Go 
map all forests" is not actionable. Hell, even "clean up all forests 
in just the area you care about" isn't. There's too much. So instead, 
I leave demonstrably wrong "forests" in place.


In your example there I would have no issues with deleting that 
"forest". Its boundaries do not agree with the boundaries of the real 
forest, and the only reason there happens to really be forest in most of 
it is because it's in a part of BC where that is true *everywhere*.


I've cleaned up bad CanVec data like that, and my first step would be to 
delete it and start from scratch, so it's not like you are causing any 
additional effort if someone decides to come along and map it properly.


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

Re: [Talk-ca] Forests/Land Use, was: Canvec reverts

[Paul Norman]

On 9/1/2016 8:17 AM, Paul Ramsey wrote:
I'm "glad" to see someone else w/ this issue. It's glancingly related 
to the canvec import issue, since the land use polygons are a source 
of some of the issues the reverter is complaining about (malformed 
multipolygons / boundary overlaps).


In my own work in my old home town of Prince George, I've constantly 
wanted to just plain delete the "urban area" land use polygon (which 
doesn't seem to correspond in any way to the actual urban area of the 
present) and the forest polygons (which have the same problem).


I get frequent complaints about CanVec forest data in OSM from people 
who would like to use OSM data but don't. It is only usable as a low 
resolution landcover layer (z4-z10 or so) and if someone wanted that, 
there are better data sources they can use.


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

Re: [Talk-ca] Forests/Land Use, was: Canvec reverts

[Paul Ramsey]

On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 11:27 AM, Adam Martin <s.adam.mar...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> That is the key here. Deleting information without replacing it with
> something more accurate is inherently destructive. There must be some
> thought as to what will be put back or one is essentially ripping the map
> up simply because you don't like how something looks or how it closely it
> follows a given rule.
>
I'm not sure I agree. "Better than nothing" I guess is the principle, but
when what is there (not nothing) gets in the way of improving other
features, then it's not better than nothing. And what if what's there is,
from an information point of view, basically nothing?

Like the forests polygons that basically do nothing to delineate where
forests actually are (or residential polygons with same issue?) "Go map all
forests" is not actionable. Hell, even "clean up all forests in just the
area you care about" isn't. There's too much. So instead, I leave
demonstrably wrong "forests" in place.

[image: Inline image 1]

I can't even salve my conscience that they at least improve the rendering a
little at an aesthetic (if not informational) level, since they were
partially loaded in the region, and actually make it look worse.

[image: Inline image 2]

Anyways, I stick to my general feeling (un-acted upon) that more is not
better, and the map would be easier to work with without the big,
unhelpful, land cover polygons.

P.



> That would be like finding parking aisles tagged as drive throughs and
> deleting them as incorrect, instead of simply correcting the tags.
>
> On Sep 1, 2016 3:30 PM, "john whelan" <jwhelan0...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> And as someone who has deleted quite a few things in OSM I would agree
>> with that statement.  When I didn't have a better replacement available
>> then I prefer not to delete unless I have done a ground level inspection
>> and there really isn't anything there.
>>
>> I think my favourite was a mapper who was demonstrating 3D software with
>> OSM.  They dropped in a group of multiple level buildings into an area I
>> was mapping in Africa.  They didn't consider what they did was wrong, it
>> was only Africa.
>>
>> Cheerio John
>>
>> On 1 Sep 2016 1:26 pm, "Begin Daniel" <jfd...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> *P: OSM is very much an "add only" project, since the social
>>> consequences of incorrectly deleting things seem so high.*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> What I do perceive in the current thread is that deleting something not
>>> perfect without replacing it with something better hurts, not that it is
>>> not acceptable to delete something.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Daniel
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* Paul Ramsey [mailto:pram...@cleverelephant.ca]
>>> *Sent:* Thursday, 1 September, 2016 13:05
>>> *To:* Begin Daniel
>>> *Cc:* Talk-CA OpenStreetMap
>>> *Subject:* Re: [Talk-ca] Forests/Land Use, was: Canvec reverts
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 8:49 AM, Begin Daniel <jfd...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> What is very cool with OSM is that you can edit the data. Urban polygon
>>> is wrong? Modify it! The definition is obscure in the Wiki? Change it! But
>>> yes, the learning curve is often steep, and you may need to discuss with
>>> someone else…
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Just fix it" is not quite the answer. The point the original poster
>>> made, which I concur with, is that the very existence of these shapes makes
>>> working with the "important" data difficult. In terms of forest and land
>>> use polygons, every vertex I move there is a vertex I'm not going to move
>>> on something "important".  (And the vertex density of the forests/land use
>>> are another reason that working around/with them is painful and
>>> energy-sapping.)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> As discussed in the other thread, the shear volume of Canada means I'm
>>> never in 1M years going to "fix" the forests. As it stands, I mostly ignore
>>> them. Too many vertexes to move, for too little net benefit, so there's
>>> forests running through the new subdivisions of Prince George. At least the
>>> roads are there and hopefully correctly named now.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  (I would, however, love to just delete the urban "land use" polygons,
>>> but who know if that's "allowed" or not. Absent a stron

Re: [Talk-ca] Forests/Land Use, was: Canvec reverts

[Adam Martin]

That is the key here. Deleting information without replacing it with
something more accurate is inherently destructive. There must be some
thought as to what will be put back or one is essentially ripping the map
up simply because you don't like how something looks or how it closely it
follows a given rule. That would be like finding parking aisles tagged as
drive throughs and deleting them as incorrect, instead of simply correcting
the tags.

On Sep 1, 2016 3:30 PM, "john whelan" <jwhelan0...@gmail.com> wrote:

> And as someone who has deleted quite a few things in OSM I would agree
> with that statement.  When I didn't have a better replacement available
> then I prefer not to delete unless I have done a ground level inspection
> and there really isn't anything there.
>
> I think my favourite was a mapper who was demonstrating 3D software with
> OSM.  They dropped in a group of multiple level buildings into an area I
> was mapping in Africa.  They didn't consider what they did was wrong, it
> was only Africa.
>
> Cheerio John
>
> On 1 Sep 2016 1:26 pm, "Begin Daniel" <jfd...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> *P: OSM is very much an "add only" project, since the social consequences
>> of incorrectly deleting things seem so high.*
>>
>>
>>
>> What I do perceive in the current thread is that deleting something not
>> perfect without replacing it with something better hurts, not that it is
>> not acceptable to delete something.
>>
>>
>>
>> Daniel
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Paul Ramsey [mailto:pram...@cleverelephant.ca]
>> *Sent:* Thursday, 1 September, 2016 13:05
>> *To:* Begin Daniel
>> *Cc:* Talk-CA OpenStreetMap
>> *Subject:* Re: [Talk-ca] Forests/Land Use, was: Canvec reverts
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 8:49 AM, Begin Daniel <jfd...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> What is very cool with OSM is that you can edit the data. Urban polygon
>> is wrong? Modify it! The definition is obscure in the Wiki? Change it! But
>> yes, the learning curve is often steep, and you may need to discuss with
>> someone else…
>>
>>
>>
>> "Just fix it" is not quite the answer. The point the original poster
>> made, which I concur with, is that the very existence of these shapes makes
>> working with the "important" data difficult. In terms of forest and land
>> use polygons, every vertex I move there is a vertex I'm not going to move
>> on something "important".  (And the vertex density of the forests/land use
>> are another reason that working around/with them is painful and
>> energy-sapping.)
>>
>>
>>
>> As discussed in the other thread, the shear volume of Canada means I'm
>> never in 1M years going to "fix" the forests. As it stands, I mostly ignore
>> them. Too many vertexes to move, for too little net benefit, so there's
>> forests running through the new subdivisions of Prince George. At least the
>> roads are there and hopefully correctly named now.
>>
>>
>>
>>  (I would, however, love to just delete the urban "land use" polygons,
>> but who know if that's "allowed" or not. Absent a strong personality like
>> the person who caused this thread, it seems like OSM is very much an "add
>> only" project, since the social consequences of incorrectly deleting things
>> seem so high. Nobody wants to be "that guy".)
>>
>>
>>
>> ATB,
>>
>>
>> P
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Paul Ramsey [mailto:pram...@cleverelephant.ca]
>> *Sent:* Thursday, 1 September, 2016 11:17
>> *To:* Talk-CA OpenStreetMap
>> *Subject:* [Talk-ca] Forests/Land Use, was: Canvec reverts
>>
>>
>>
>> I'm "glad" to see someone else w/ this issue. It's glancingly related to
>> the canvec import issue, since the land use polygons are a source of some
>> of the issues the reverter is complaining about (malformed multipolygons /
>> boundary overlaps).
>>
>>
>>
>> In my own work in my old home town of Prince George, I've constantly
>> wanted to just plain delete the "urban area" land use polygon (which
>> doesn't seem to correspond in any way to the actual urban area of the
>> present) and the forest polygons (which have the same problem).
>>
>>
>>
>> Unlike buildings and roads and water, land use is pretty sloppy: where
>> does the "urban area" end? Is this a "forest" or just a bunch of trees?
>> Since anyone

Re: [Talk-ca] Forests/Land Use, was: Canvec reverts

[john whelan]

And as someone who has deleted quite a few things in OSM I would agree with
that statement.  When I didn't have a better replacement available then I
prefer not to delete unless I have done a ground level inspection and there
really isn't anything there.

I think my favourite was a mapper who was demonstrating 3D software with
OSM.  They dropped in a group of multiple level buildings into an area I
was mapping in Africa.  They didn't consider what they did was wrong, it
was only Africa.

Cheerio John

On 1 Sep 2016 1:26 pm, "Begin Daniel" <jfd...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> *P: OSM is very much an "add only" project, since the social consequences
> of incorrectly deleting things seem so high.*
>
>
>
> What I do perceive in the current thread is that deleting something not
> perfect without replacing it with something better hurts, not that it is
> not acceptable to delete something.
>
>
>
> Daniel
>
>
>
> *From:* Paul Ramsey [mailto:pram...@cleverelephant.ca]
> *Sent:* Thursday, 1 September, 2016 13:05
> *To:* Begin Daniel
> *Cc:* Talk-CA OpenStreetMap
> *Subject:* Re: [Talk-ca] Forests/Land Use, was: Canvec reverts
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 8:49 AM, Begin Daniel <jfd...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> What is very cool with OSM is that you can edit the data. Urban polygon is
> wrong? Modify it! The definition is obscure in the Wiki? Change it! But
> yes, the learning curve is often steep, and you may need to discuss with
> someone else…
>
>
>
> "Just fix it" is not quite the answer. The point the original poster made,
> which I concur with, is that the very existence of these shapes makes
> working with the "important" data difficult. In terms of forest and land
> use polygons, every vertex I move there is a vertex I'm not going to move
> on something "important".  (And the vertex density of the forests/land use
> are another reason that working around/with them is painful and
> energy-sapping.)
>
>
>
> As discussed in the other thread, the shear volume of Canada means I'm
> never in 1M years going to "fix" the forests. As it stands, I mostly ignore
> them. Too many vertexes to move, for too little net benefit, so there's
> forests running through the new subdivisions of Prince George. At least the
> roads are there and hopefully correctly named now.
>
>
>
>  (I would, however, love to just delete the urban "land use" polygons, but
> who know if that's "allowed" or not. Absent a strong personality like the
> person who caused this thread, it seems like OSM is very much an "add only"
> project, since the social consequences of incorrectly deleting things seem
> so high. Nobody wants to be "that guy".)
>
>
>
> ATB,
>
>
> P
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Paul Ramsey [mailto:pram...@cleverelephant.ca]
> *Sent:* Thursday, 1 September, 2016 11:17
> *To:* Talk-CA OpenStreetMap
> *Subject:* [Talk-ca] Forests/Land Use, was: Canvec reverts
>
>
>
> I'm "glad" to see someone else w/ this issue. It's glancingly related to
> the canvec import issue, since the land use polygons are a source of some
> of the issues the reverter is complaining about (malformed multipolygons /
> boundary overlaps).
>
>
>
> In my own work in my old home town of Prince George, I've constantly
> wanted to just plain delete the "urban area" land use polygon (which
> doesn't seem to correspond in any way to the actual urban area of the
> present) and the forest polygons (which have the same problem).
>
>
>
> Unlike buildings and roads and water, land use is pretty sloppy: where
> does the "urban area" end? Is this a "forest" or just a bunch of trees?
> Since anyone making a real multi-scale map will fine some other source of
> land-use (like classified landsat) and since people trying to map at
> high-res are finding the forests add little value and much impedance, why
> don't we ... burn down all the forests (and the urban areas too)?
>
>
>
> P
>
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 6:54 AM, Loïc Haméon <hame...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On a final note, though, I certainly would approve of any effort to reduce
> the size of the upload chunks and the assorted polygons. For new mappers
> like me, those create daunting challenges when trying to make incremental
> improvements to an area. Shortly after joining the OSM community I was back
> in my home town of Saint-Félicien, in a fairly remote region that hasn't
> had tons of local mapping done. Some of the inhabited areas I aimed to
> improve were covered by Canvec forest multipolygons, and I ended up giving
> up on them until I could get some more experience as I absolutely did not
> understand what the hell was going on
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Forests/Land Use, was: Canvec reverts

[Begin Daniel]

P: OSM is very much an "add only" project, since the social consequences of 
incorrectly deleting things seem so high.

What I do perceive in the current thread is that deleting something not perfect 
without replacing it with something better hurts, not that it is not acceptable 
to delete something.

Daniel

From: Paul Ramsey [mailto:pram...@cleverelephant.ca]
Sent: Thursday, 1 September, 2016 13:05
To: Begin Daniel
Cc: Talk-CA OpenStreetMap
Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Forests/Land Use, was: Canvec reverts


On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 8:49 AM, Begin Daniel 
<jfd...@hotmail.com<mailto:jfd...@hotmail.com>> wrote:
What is very cool with OSM is that you can edit the data. Urban polygon is 
wrong? Modify it! The definition is obscure in the Wiki? Change it! But yes, 
the learning curve is often steep, and you may need to discuss with someone 
else…

"Just fix it" is not quite the answer. The point the original poster made, 
which I concur with, is that the very existence of these shapes makes working 
with the "important" data difficult. In terms of forest and land use polygons, 
every vertex I move there is a vertex I'm not going to move on something 
"important".  (And the vertex density of the forests/land use are another 
reason that working around/with them is painful and energy-sapping.)

As discussed in the other thread, the shear volume of Canada means I'm never in 
1M years going to "fix" the forests. As it stands, I mostly ignore them. Too 
many vertexes to move, for too little net benefit, so there's forests running 
through the new subdivisions of Prince George. At least the roads are there and 
hopefully correctly named now.

 (I would, however, love to just delete the urban "land use" polygons, but who 
know if that's "allowed" or not. Absent a strong personality like the person 
who caused this thread, it seems like OSM is very much an "add only" project, 
since the social consequences of incorrectly deleting things seem so high. 
Nobody wants to be "that guy".)

ATB,

P



From: Paul Ramsey 
[mailto:pram...@cleverelephant.ca<mailto:pram...@cleverelephant.ca>]
Sent: Thursday, 1 September, 2016 11:17
To: Talk-CA OpenStreetMap
Subject: [Talk-ca] Forests/Land Use, was: Canvec reverts

I'm "glad" to see someone else w/ this issue. It's glancingly related to the 
canvec import issue, since the land use polygons are a source of some of the 
issues the reverter is complaining about (malformed multipolygons / boundary 
overlaps).

In my own work in my old home town of Prince George, I've constantly wanted to 
just plain delete the "urban area" land use polygon (which doesn't seem to 
correspond in any way to the actual urban area of the present) and the forest 
polygons (which have the same problem).

Unlike buildings and roads and water, land use is pretty sloppy: where does the 
"urban area" end? Is this a "forest" or just a bunch of trees? Since anyone 
making a real multi-scale map will fine some other source of land-use (like 
classified landsat) and since people trying to map at high-res are finding the 
forests add little value and much impedance, why don't we ... burn down all the 
forests (and the urban areas too)?

P

On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 6:54 AM, Loïc Haméon 
<hame...@gmail.com<mailto:hame...@gmail.com>> wrote:

On a final note, though, I certainly would approve of any effort to reduce the 
size of the upload chunks and the assorted polygons. For new mappers like me, 
those create daunting challenges when trying to make incremental improvements 
to an area. Shortly after joining the OSM community I was back in my home town 
of Saint-Félicien, in a fairly remote region that hasn't had tons of local 
mapping done. Some of the inhabited areas I aimed to improve were covered by 
Canvec forest multipolygons, and I ended up giving up on them until I could get 
some more experience as I absolutely did not understand what the hell was going 
on

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

Re: [Talk-ca] Forests/Land Use, was: Canvec reverts

[Paul Ramsey]

On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 8:49 AM, Begin Daniel <jfd...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> What is very cool with OSM is that you can edit the data. Urban polygon is
> wrong? Modify it! The definition is obscure in the Wiki? Change it! But
> yes, the learning curve is often steep, and you may need to discuss with
> someone else…
>

"Just fix it" is not quite the answer. The point the original poster made,
which I concur with, is that the very existence of these shapes makes
working with the "important" data difficult. In terms of forest and land
use polygons, every vertex I move there is a vertex I'm not going to move
on something "important".  (And the vertex density of the forests/land use
are another reason that working around/with them is painful and
energy-sapping.)

As discussed in the other thread, the shear volume of Canada means I'm
never in 1M years going to "fix" the forests. As it stands, I mostly ignore
them. Too many vertexes to move, for too little net benefit, so there's
forests running through the new subdivisions of Prince George. At least the
roads are there and hopefully correctly named now.

 (I would, however, love to just delete the urban "land use" polygons, but
who know if that's "allowed" or not. Absent a strong personality like the
person who caused this thread, it seems like OSM is very much an "add only"
project, since the social consequences of incorrectly deleting things seem
so high. Nobody wants to be "that guy".)

ATB,

P



>
> *From:* Paul Ramsey [mailto:pram...@cleverelephant.ca]
> *Sent:* Thursday, 1 September, 2016 11:17
> *To:* Talk-CA OpenStreetMap
> *Subject:* [Talk-ca] Forests/Land Use, was: Canvec reverts
>
>
>
> I'm "glad" to see someone else w/ this issue. It's glancingly related to
> the canvec import issue, since the land use polygons are a source of some
> of the issues the reverter is complaining about (malformed multipolygons /
> boundary overlaps).
>
>
>
> In my own work in my old home town of Prince George, I've constantly
> wanted to just plain delete the "urban area" land use polygon (which
> doesn't seem to correspond in any way to the actual urban area of the
> present) and the forest polygons (which have the same problem).
>
>
>
> Unlike buildings and roads and water, land use is pretty sloppy: where
> does the "urban area" end? Is this a "forest" or just a bunch of trees?
> Since anyone making a real multi-scale map will fine some other source of
> land-use (like classified landsat) and since people trying to map at
> high-res are finding the forests add little value and much impedance, why
> don't we ... burn down all the forests (and the urban areas too)?
>
>
>
> P
>
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 6:54 AM, Loïc Haméon <hame...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On a final note, though, I certainly would approve of any effort to reduce
> the size of the upload chunks and the assorted polygons. For new mappers
> like me, those create daunting challenges when trying to make incremental
> improvements to an area. Shortly after joining the OSM community I was back
> in my home town of Saint-Félicien, in a fairly remote region that hasn't
> had tons of local mapping done. Some of the inhabited areas I aimed to
> improve were covered by Canvec forest multipolygons, and I ended up giving
> up on them until I could get some more experience as I absolutely did not
> understand what the hell was going on
>
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Forests/Land Use, was: Canvec reverts

[Sam Dyck]

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] Forests/Land Use, was: Canvec reverts

[Begin Daniel]

Why don't we ... burn down all the forests (and the urban areas too)?
Been in Fort-McMurray lately? (Ok it is a bad joke)

Seriously, these discussions about what should be mapped or not, what is 
valuable content or not are raging since the beginning of OSM. More recently, 
discussions around the value of hand crafted map compared to imported data are 
also dividing the community. Those are all ‘normal events’ in a collective work 
and they will not stop. Best thing to do is sharing your concerns, as you just 
did. These are seeds that may grow up, or not.

What is very cool with OSM is that you can edit the data. Urban polygon is 
wrong? Modify it! The definition is obscure in the Wiki? Change it! But yes, 
the learning curve is often steep, and you may need to discuss with someone 
else…

Best regard,
Daniel

From: Paul Ramsey [mailto:pram...@cleverelephant.ca]
Sent: Thursday, 1 September, 2016 11:17
To: Talk-CA OpenStreetMap
Subject: [Talk-ca] Forests/Land Use, was: Canvec reverts

I'm "glad" to see someone else w/ this issue. It's glancingly related to the 
canvec import issue, since the land use polygons are a source of some of the 
issues the reverter is complaining about (malformed multipolygons / boundary 
overlaps).

In my own work in my old home town of Prince George, I've constantly wanted to 
just plain delete the "urban area" land use polygon (which doesn't seem to 
correspond in any way to the actual urban area of the present) and the forest 
polygons (which have the same problem).

Unlike buildings and roads and water, land use is pretty sloppy: where does the 
"urban area" end? Is this a "forest" or just a bunch of trees? Since anyone 
making a real multi-scale map will fine some other source of land-use (like 
classified landsat) and since people trying to map at high-res are finding the 
forests add little value and much impedance, why don't we ... burn down all the 
forests (and the urban areas too)?

P

On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 6:54 AM, Loïc Haméon 
<hame...@gmail.com<mailto:hame...@gmail.com>> wrote:

On a final note, though, I certainly would approve of any effort to reduce the 
size of the upload chunks and the assorted polygons. For new mappers like me, 
those create daunting challenges when trying to make incremental improvements 
to an area. Shortly after joining the OSM community I was back in my home town 
of Saint-Félicien, in a fairly remote region that hasn't had tons of local 
mapping done. Some of the inhabited areas I aimed to improve were covered by 
Canvec forest multipolygons, and I ended up giving up on them until I could get 
some more experience as I absolutely did not understand what the hell was going 
on
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Forests/Land Use, was: Canvec reverts

[James]

because it is a tangible item in the real world, it should be mapped?
OpenStreetMap is not just about roads and navigation, it's an Open GIS
representation of the world around us. People may be using that
information, even if you are not. While we are at it why not just nuke
lakes and rivers as they serve no purpose right?

On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 11:17 AM, Paul Ramsey 
wrote:

> I'm "glad" to see someone else w/ this issue. It's glancingly related to
> the canvec import issue, since the land use polygons are a source of some
> of the issues the reverter is complaining about (malformed multipolygons /
> boundary overlaps).
>
> In my own work in my old home town of Prince George, I've constantly
> wanted to just plain delete the "urban area" land use polygon (which
> doesn't seem to correspond in any way to the actual urban area of the
> present) and the forest polygons (which have the same problem).
>
> Unlike buildings and roads and water, land use is pretty sloppy: where
> does the "urban area" end? Is this a "forest" or just a bunch of trees?
> Since anyone making a real multi-scale map will fine some other source of
> land-use (like classified landsat) and since people trying to map at
> high-res are finding the forests add little value and much impedance, why
> don't we ... burn down all the forests (and the urban areas too)?
>
> P
>
> On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 6:54 AM, Loïc Haméon  wrote:
>
>>
>> On a final note, though, I certainly would approve of any effort to
>> reduce the size of the upload chunks and the assorted polygons. For new
>> mappers like me, those create daunting challenges when trying to make
>> incremental improvements to an area. Shortly after joining the OSM
>> community I was back in my home town of Saint-Félicien, in a fairly remote
>> region that hasn't had tons of local mapping done. Some of the inhabited
>> areas I aimed to improve were covered by Canvec forest multipolygons, and I
>> ended up giving up on them until I could get some more experience as I
>> absolutely did not understand what the hell was going on
>>
>>
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>
>


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

[Talk-ca] Forests/Land Use, was: Canvec reverts

[Paul Ramsey]

I'm "glad" to see someone else w/ this issue. It's glancingly related to
the canvec import issue, since the land use polygons are a source of some
of the issues the reverter is complaining about (malformed multipolygons /
boundary overlaps).

In my own work in my old home town of Prince George, I've constantly wanted
to just plain delete the "urban area" land use polygon (which doesn't seem
to correspond in any way to the actual urban area of the present) and the
forest polygons (which have the same problem).

Unlike buildings and roads and water, land use is pretty sloppy: where does
the "urban area" end? Is this a "forest" or just a bunch of trees? Since
anyone making a real multi-scale map will fine some other source of
land-use (like classified landsat) and since people trying to map at
high-res are finding the forests add little value and much impedance, why
don't we ... burn down all the forests (and the urban areas too)?

P

On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 6:54 AM, Loïc Haméon  wrote:

>
> On a final note, though, I certainly would approve of any effort to reduce
> the size of the upload chunks and the assorted polygons. For new mappers
> like me, those create daunting challenges when trying to make incremental
> improvements to an area. Shortly after joining the OSM community I was back
> in my home town of Saint-Félicien, in a fairly remote region that hasn't
> had tons of local mapping done. Some of the inhabited areas I aimed to
> improve were covered by Canvec forest multipolygons, and I ended up giving
> up on them until I could get some more experience as I absolutely did not
> understand what the hell was going on
>
>
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca