Adam Glauser wrote:
I've found a way[1], which appears to have come in with this import,
but is incorrectly named. I checked out the Geobase website and found
their viewing tool[2], but I can't see the names for the NRN ways.
How can I check whether this is, in fact, an error in the NRN data?
Se
On Sat, 13 Jun 2009, Adam Glauser wrote:
> I've found a way[1], which appears to have come in with this import,
> but is incorrectly named. I checked out the Geobase website and found
> their viewing tool[2], but I can't see the names for the NRN ways.
> How can I check whether this is, in fact,
I've found a way[1], which appears to have come in with this import,
but is incorrectly named. I checked out the Geobase website and found
their viewing tool[2], but I can't see the names for the NRN ways.
How can I check whether this is, in fact, an error in the NRN data?
Secondly, when I fix it
> That's a possibility, though RoadMatcher is the tool for exactly this
> purpose. For now, after the import, in problematic places I compare
> the topologies by opening the resulting .osm file from geobase2osm
> script (not the standalone, but the whole thing) as another layer. Then
> data can
On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 03:13:23PM -0700, Austin Henry
(ahenry-...@canoe.staticcling.org) wrote:
> - Michael Barabanov arranged a host of electrons thusly: -
> > Hmm, did I say "more authoritative"? I thought it was something like
> > "more consistent and topologically correct".
>
> Hmm, musing
- Michael Barabanov arranged a host of electrons thusly: -
> Hmm, did I say "more authoritative"? I thought it was something like
> "more consistent and topologically correct".
Hmm, musing on the issue of topology (and assuming I understand what you
mean by that term), it should be possible to wr
Meanwhile, for the existing process I've added "After the Import" section to
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Geobase_NRN_-_OSM_Map_Feature
It's also mentioned it in "How can I help".
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/GeoBase_Import
Michael.
On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 02:34:29PM -0700, Michael B
On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 02:19:08PM -0700, Corey Burger (corey.bur...@gmail.com)
wrote:
> I snipped out that section becuase it wasn't the first suggestion to
> throw out existing data and I wanted to nip that suggestion at the
> bud.
Nevertheless, we will have to deal with the issues I mentioned.
On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 2:07 PM, Michael
Barabanov wrote:
> Corey,
>
> In my original message (as opposed to a snippet you quoted), I
> suggest that matching geobase UUID is equivalent to throwing out the
> data, if not position-wise, then topology-wise. We can take the easy
> way or a hard way, b
Hmm, did I say "more authoritative"? I thought it was something like
"more consistent and topologically correct".
On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 10:28:56AM -0400, Gerald A (geraldabli...@gmail.com)
wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 1:36 AM, Corey Burger wrote:
>
> > > > 1) start fresh (streets/road-wi
Corey,
In my original message (as opposed to a snippet you quoted), I
suggest that matching geobase UUID is equivalent to throwing out the
data, if not position-wise, then topology-wise. We can take the easy
way or a hard way, but end result will be pretty much the same.
Avoiding pissing off map
Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 10:08 AM, William Lachance wrote:
> On Sat, 2009-06-13 at 10:28 -0400, Gerald A wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 1:36 AM, Corey Burger
>> wrote:
>> > > 1) start fresh (streets/road-wise), enjoy correct topology
>> and overall
>> > consistenc
- William Lachance arranged a host of electrons thusly: -
> > Having the uuids around also make it easier to talk about
> > differences/errors between OSM and geobase data. Someone can look
> > at a road in OSM and easily find the original GeoBase road (using
> > your favourite gis tool) and comp
On Sat, 13 Jun 2009, William Lachance wrote:
> All I'm saying is that these tools sometimes depend on certain shared
> assumptions on how the data is grouped and tagged, and one of these
> conventions is that a way (read: road) with the same properties
> shouldn't be split on junctions.
But if a
On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 20:48 -0400, Steve Singer wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Jun 2009, William Lachance wrote:
>
> > Maybe I'm missing something, but I frankly just don't see the
> purpose in
> > tagging our data differently from the rest of the world, when we can
> > achieve the desired end (comparing OS
On Sat, 2009-06-13 at 10:28 -0400, Gerald A wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 1:36 AM, Corey Burger
> wrote:
> > 1) start fresh (streets/road-wise), enjoy correct topology
> and overall
> > consistency for the whole Canada from the start, and
> correct/add
On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 17:54 -0600, James Ewen wrote:
>
>
> > At best, the way we're
> > doing things will unneccessarily enlarge the OSM layer for Canada by
> > putting in redundant road tagging information into the database. At
> > worst, you cause problems with third party tools.
> Still not s
On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 1:36 AM, Corey Burger wrote:
> > 1) start fresh (streets/road-wise), enjoy correct topology and overall
> > consistency for the whole Canada from the start, and correct/add to
> out-of-date data from GeoBase.
>
>
> Under no circumstances should we be deleting already coll
For those on the list, I'm currently starting to investigate importing
the PEI data. Anyone else interested in helping out? Any good
pointers on setting everything up?
B
On 12-Jun-09, at 10:11 PM, Steve Singer wrote:
>
>
> http://www.geobase.ca/geobase/en/news/index.html
>
> Might be of int
19 matches
Mail list logo
