I've already said what I have to say about the issue at hand in earlier discussion. A more lighthearted remark: whenever I feel depressed about some Canvec-related issue I load up JOSM, pick a random location in the US, and spend half an hour fixing TIGER data. It's a very effective therapeutic...
Harald, who's currently spending a lot of time with this http://lima.schaaltreinen.nl/remap/ On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 6:37 AM, Paul Norman <[email protected]> wrote: > CanVec data comes from multiple sources and this can lead to internal > inconsistencies. A common case is a new development where there used to be > trees. The tree data in CanVec might be older and show an area as forested > while there is newer road data indicating that the area has been developed. > An example of this type is > http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=45.695&lon=-73.905&zoom=17 although I have > seen many other cases of it. > > Another common case is the trees in water problem frequently found in BC. A > typical example is > http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=58.648&lon=-123.911&zoom=17 where there is > a conflict between the water data and the forest data. You need to view the > data as it doesn't show up on the rendering. > > Is it the communities view that it is okay to import CanVec without > reconciling the internal differences between the layers? > > My view is that importing data without resolving conflicts of this type > where it conflicts with either existing data or internally is not an > acceptable import and indicates the importer did not sufficiently review > what they were uploading. > > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-ca mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca -- Please use encrypted communication whenever possible! Key-ID: 0x199DC50F _______________________________________________ Talk-ca mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
