> From: Ian Bruseker [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2012 9:31 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Canadian imports: good or bad? > > On 2012-04-15, at 6:37 PM, Steve Singer <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I also feel that not of all data sources are equal. Even within > > Canvec some layers are excellent (ie roads and lakes in most of the > > country) while others are often so out of date it isn't worth the time > > to import (ie buildings in much of Southern Ontario) > > > That's the third mention in a row of bad building data in Canvec. I'll > chime in on that to say I found a hospital in St. Albert, Alberta that > was marked as having come from an import. The hospital hasn't been there > for 20 years. The new building is several kilometers away. Not just bad, > full on dangerous if someone actually believed the data in OSM and tried > to find help when they were hurt. :-(
I thought it was just BC but it sounds like it's everywhere. Would I be correct in summarizing the opinions so far as 1. The buildings data from CanVec should not be imported unless it can be verified against imagery, in which case you might as well trace the buildings from imagery. 2. There is not a consensus among the community that CanVec data can be imported without verifying the data for internal consistency and where possible against imagery. _______________________________________________ Talk-ca mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
