AUGGHHHH!!!!
On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 7:51 AM, William Lachance <[email protected]> wrote: > Yup, I should have noted this-- it probably makes sense in many cases > for this script to merge some of the GeoBase segments together into > single OSM ways, as there doesn't seem to be any reason for them to > remain seperate (e.g. I believe all the "Agricola" segments in Halifax > have the same properties). But GeoBase identifies each segment between intersections as a unique segment, with a unique ID. I am in favour of keeping GeoBase ways intact. Modification of the GeoBase ways to depict better geometry, and other modification should keep the rest of the information in place. This makes it easier for future import processes and comparisons. The GeoBase people now showing interest in the OSM project to help them identify new roads, or areas of concern. This is yet another reason to keep GeoBase attributes in place. I know people will argue that the OSM project should not be dictated to by outside influences, such as GeoBase, but the flip side of the coin is that if we play nice with others, both groups can benefit. Wouldn't it be a feather in our cap to have the Government of Canada and OSM become partners in a collaborative crowd-sourced national map database for the second largest country in the world? James VE6SRV _______________________________________________ Talk-ca mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
