I've been in contact with the user who did the import, and referred him to the list. He's posted here before. My impression is that this was a well-meaning import with unintended consequences; I'm not at all comfortable with the talk of "vandalism" on osm-talk that was spurred on by tweets I made yesterday.
I appreciate the problems about CanVec imports and quality, James. I've spotted areas that had road data that, on closer inspection, were horribly problematic: they were added, presumably, before high-resolution Bing imagery became available for that area. They may well have been good candidates for wipe-and-replace CanVec imports, but from a great height the areas probably looked okay. (I only noticed them because I was familiar with the area and wanted to see if there were a few things I could add to existing edits, and then got sucked in for an hour and a half doing my best to straighten roads and railways, correct intersections, add parks and parking lots, and so on, and so on ... ) The data imported in Aylmer/Gatineau/Hull is in point of fact more up to date than the Bing imagery, and adds new roads that I would have had to go out with a GPS to trace (no sooner than spring). It also adds addr:interpolation data, which is useful. But on balance ... I don't know how to revert and I've never used JOSM. Map-wise, I have a lot of things on my plate. I've been quite happy to trace imagery and to walk around with my GPS and upload the tracklogs, but I have no interest in mucking about with CanVec imports. Which is to say that I'd very much appreciate any assistance in getting all of this cleaned up. I believe the importer could use some assistance as well. I don't suppose we could keep the CanVec addr:interpolation ways with the previously traced streets? Jonathan Crowe The Map Room http://www.maproomblog.com/ _______________________________________________ Talk-ca mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
