2009/3/23 Sam Vekemans <[email protected]> > Thanks, > Good call. :-) > > The point feature "building=yes" otherwise known as > > point,CODE,2010010,canvec:CODE,2010010 > point,CODE,2010010,building,yes > > What it does is show up as a little house icon with JOSM > > for the polygons, they show up as nice shapes.. and when clicked on would > simply state this this is a building. > > outer,CODE,2010012,canvec:CODE,2010012 > outer,CODE,2010012,building,yes > inner,CODE,2010012,canvec:CODE,2010012 > inner,CODE,2010012,building,yes > > > I have not yet received the answer from NRCan about if the location of the > node is EXACTLY where the building actually is, or is it just shown in the > general area. If it is the former, then this information can be taken into > account. >
The position of buildings may be "exact" if the acquisition methods was from stereo-digitization. If it came from map scanning they may have been displaced for map representation purposes. My guess is 80% of the buildings in CanVec come from map scanning. > > What i can do, and i presume that you all would agree, is to add this > feature to the "not4osm" folder so then it could be used as an assistant for > the person who is actually uploading the information. > > However, I would also agree that adding this feature would be similar to > me using the Aerial imagery and whereever i spot some "THING" that looks > like a building, quickly tag it as building=yes. ... this information is > meaningless to the map user. ... odds are, that right next to it is some > other 'building'. Unless the purpose is clearly stated, we dont need to > include this feature. > Following the new information I received from [email protected](i have just forwarded the email to talk-ca) we may still want them for mapping purposes. > > And YES, there are other point features which need to be looked at to see > if they are actually useful. As im going through the sharts, i'll now be > looking at it. > We can list them, then check with the [email protected] talk if they are part of the render feature. > > For example, when the feature lists 9 or so different feature types, the > general practice for both GeoBase & CanVec is to state "-1" unknown and "0" > none ... i would suggest that these features be omitted from the import > also. > > Any thoughts on that? > Again it depends if the [email protected] talk confirm that no render is possible. If we really want them display we can ask them ? Michel > > Cheers, > Sam > > P.S. I was thinking of adding another column to the 11 themes of CanVec > charts, for "status" > PPS. I am still finding some features that were accidentally missed when i > was copying the data from the feature catelogue to the charts, so it's a > good idea to cross-check with the .pdf catelogue to find out what the actual > definition was. ~ probably 95% accurate, but always good to check :-) > > Hi all, >> > >> Two weeks ago, I worked on the import of CanVec-Buildings using Map >> feature >> > table on the wiki. I noticed at that time that point buildings imported as >> > building="yes" did not appear on the osm map. Sam probably rebembered the >> > discussion about it. So, I sent my question to the >> > [email protected]. It appears that building="yes" will be >> <[email protected]> > > rendered on the map only if they are polygons.<[email protected]> >> <[email protected]> > > >> To conclude, I think there is no reason to import Canvec point building >> > unless they have specific functions. It may be true for other point >> > features. We should make sure before importing them. >> > >> cheers, >> > >> Michel >> > -- Michel Gilbert
_______________________________________________ Talk-ca mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
