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;
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
Bonjour again!
Available administrative boundary will be included in the next release of
Canvec.osm. From the wiki, here is the tagging values I'm going to use...
Municipal Regional: boundary=administrative; admin_level=5
Upper municipality: boundary=administrative; admin_level=6
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
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
Can you give an example of a municipal regional or upper municipality?
Looking at the global usage, admin_level=5 is seldom used. I would think
that Municipal Regional would be 6 and upper municipality would be 7, but I
cant really say without examples.
I would also suggest that these
I would also suggest that these features in the .osm file not be closed –
just have the boundary, don’t handle it like lakes where you have multiple
areas you need to join where they cross tile bounds.
I agree; this can be especially problematic when the split objects end
up being
7 matches
Mail list logo
