On 09/12/2016 06:50 PM, Stewart C. Russell wrote:
On 2016-09-12 04:08 PM, Martijn van Exel wrote:
Aren't these files grouped by feature type? So if we look at roads we
wouldn't also necessarily need to look at land use boundaries etc.?
Canvec - the product supplied by NRCan to the general public - always
was split by feature type. It's the OSM tiles, of structure decided long
ago, that lump everything together.
It's also available as effectively seamless FGDBs if you want to avoid
the cleanup required after using tiled data. The FGDBs retain the
critically important survey dates and accuracies - so you can easily see
how much data's 40 years old and has ±75 m positional accuracy.
Good to know.
Are any of the transport related datasets that old or that inaccurate?
I created an initial Canvec road network translation file for ogr2osm,
so you can convert the Canvec shapefiles to OSM format easily (if you
know how to work ogr2osm - let me know if you need help, but Paul Norman
is the expert here!)
It is located at
https://github.com/mvexel/canvec-ogr2osm-translation/blob/master/canvec2016.py
and I hope for many forks and improvements. Right now it does a basic
job of translating the road classes to OSM types, and the most obvious
attributes to the corresponding OSM tags.
Let me know what you all think.
Martijn
_______________________________________________
Talk-ca mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
