Re: [Talk-ca] Toronto Potential Datasource

[Andrew MacKinnon]

On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 10:05 PM, Sam Vekemans
 wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 6:52 PM, Andrew MacKinnon 
> wrote:
>>
>> The TTC data is pretty much useless to us because it is in a weird
>> non-documented format. Would the TTC be willing to allow us to copy
>> directly from its website, which includes route data in a much more
>> user-friendly format?
>>
>> Andrew
>>
>
> We can take notes for the Vancouver Transit Data, perhaps the folks who
> created the ttc file maybe to able to  collaborate a little.
> I haven't yet dealt with the TransLink data yet, so i have no idea what the
> source file is like. If it's simple nodes then attributes of the route is
> stored there, then it's.
> ... cool others have been working on it.  Thanks Richard
>
> Has anyone sent of a message to the City of Toronto?

OK, I found a file indicating the meanings of the TTC data format at
the datato group, but it's broken. The latitude and longitude of each
bus stop are supposed to be there, but they are missing. This means
the TTC data is useless until this is fixed.

___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] [OSM-talk] shp-to-osm 0.7

[Sam Vekemans]

Cool thanks :)

Great Job!

Sam

On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 8:38 PM, Ian Dees  wrote:

> I just uploaded shp-to-osm 0.7, a Java tool to convert shapefiles to OSM
> format.
>
> This version adds two important features:
> - "glomming": the ability to connect ways based on a key/value pair
> - tags for multipolygon relations have been moved from the relation to the
> outer ways (fixing a bug with the -t option)
>
> Download it here:
> http://redmine.yellowbkpk.com/projects/list_files/geo
>
> File bugs/feature requests here:
> http://redmine.yellowbkpk.com/projects/geo/issues/new
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> t...@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
>
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] 021e area - sherbrook

[Sam Vekemans]

Cool i saw that, thanks :)

Cheers,
Sam

On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 7:48 PM, Frank Steggink wrote:

> Hi Sam,
>
> Please see the e-mail I just sent you. Re. the 021E sheet, that will be
> taken care of within the next few weeks. :)
>
> Frank
>
> Sam Vekemans wrote:
>
>> Hi Daniel,
>> I have the 021e area. it wasnt until after i converted it that i saw that
>> the roads wern't yet converted.  But im sure they will be :)
>>
>>
>> http://www.mediafire.com/?sharekey=3b30da6df5072902ab1eab3e9fa335ca95c66efc5bd7c210
>>
>> This one now included the rivers names, as well as a french version of it.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Sam
>>
>>
>>
>> Twitter: @Acrosscanada
>> Blog:  http://Acrosscanadatrails.blogspot.com
>> Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/sam.vekemans
>> OpenStreetMap IRC: http://irc.openstreetmap.org
>> @Acrosscanadatrails
>> 
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-ca mailing list
>> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>>
>>
>
>
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] 021e area - sherbrook

[Frank Steggink]

Hi Sam,

Please see the e-mail I just sent you. Re. the 021E sheet, that will be 
taken care of within the next few weeks. :)

Frank

Sam Vekemans wrote:
> Hi Daniel,
> I have the 021e area. it wasnt until after i converted it that i saw 
> that the roads wern't yet converted.  But im sure they will be :)
>
> http://www.mediafire.com/?sharekey=3b30da6df5072902ab1eab3e9fa335ca95c66efc5bd7c210
>
> This one now included the rivers names, as well as a french version of it.
>
> Cheers,
> Sam
>
>
>
> Twitter: @Acrosscanada
> Blog:  http://Acrosscanadatrails.blogspot.com
> Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/sam.vekemans
> OpenStreetMap IRC: http://irc.openstreetmap.org
> @Acrosscanadatrails
> 
>
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>   


___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

[Talk-ca] 021e area - sherbrook

[Sam Vekemans]

Hi Daniel,
I have the 021e area. it wasnt until after i converted it that i saw that
the roads wern't yet converted.  But im sure they will be :)

http://www.mediafire.com/?sharekey=3b30da6df5072902ab1eab3e9fa335ca95c66efc5bd7c210

This one now included the rivers names, as well as a french version of it.

Cheers,
Sam



Twitter: @Acrosscanada
Blog:  http://Acrosscanadatrails.blogspot.com
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/sam.vekemans
OpenStreetMap IRC: http://irc.openstreetmap.org
@Acrosscanadatrails
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Toronto Potential Datasource

[Andrew MacKinnon]

The City of Toronto aerial imagery WMS server URL (for JOSM) is at
(remember the last &):

http://map.toronto.ca/servlet/com.esri.wms.Esrimap/OrthoImagery?REQUEST=GetMap&SERVICE=WMS&VERSION=1.1.1&LAYERS=Ortho
Imagery 50cm 
2005&STYLES=&FORMAT=image/png&BGCOLOR=0xFF&TRANSPARENT=TRUE&SRS=EPSG:4326&

It seems that the City of Toronto imagery seems to show up as slightly
misaligned in JOSM relative to the Yahoo imagery (which I have been
deriving data from), GPS traces, and GeoBase data. Annoying.

___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Toronto Potential Datasource

[Sam Vekemans]

I just saw on the IRC

http://www.opengeodata.org/2009/11/04/open-data-from-toronto/

Looks like we have Mark Kuznicki   to thank for that.
Awesome!

Cheers,
Sam

On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 7:05 PM, Sam Vekemans
wrote:

>
> On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 6:52 PM, Andrew MacKinnon wrote:
>
>>
>> The TTC data is pretty much useless to us because it is in a weird
>> non-documented format. Would the TTC be willing to allow us to copy
>> directly from its website, which includes route data in a much more
>> user-friendly format?
>>
>> Andrew
>>
>>
> We can take notes for the Vancouver Transit Data, perhaps the folks who
> created the ttc file maybe to able to  collaborate a little.
> I haven't yet dealt with the TransLink data yet, so i have no idea what the
> source file is like. If it's simple nodes then attributes of the route is
> stored there, then it's.
> ... cool others have been working on it.  Thanks Richard
>
> Has anyone sent of a message to the City of Toronto?
>
> Curious,
> Sam
>
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Toronto Potential Datasource

[Sam Vekemans]

On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 6:52 PM, Andrew MacKinnon wrote:

>
> The TTC data is pretty much useless to us because it is in a weird
> non-documented format. Would the TTC be willing to allow us to copy
> directly from its website, which includes route data in a much more
> user-friendly format?
>
> Andrew
>
>
We can take notes for the Vancouver Transit Data, perhaps the folks who
created the ttc file maybe to able to  collaborate a little.
I haven't yet dealt with the TransLink data yet, so i have no idea what the
source file is like. If it's simple nodes then attributes of the route is
stored there, then it's.
... cool others have been working on it.  Thanks Richard

Has anyone sent of a message to the City of Toronto?

Curious,
Sam
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Toronto Potential Datasource

[Richard Weait]

On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 9:52 PM, Andrew MacKinnon  wrote:

> The TTC data is pretty much useless to us because it is in a weird
> non-documented format. Would the TTC be willing to allow us to copy
> directly from its website, which includes route data in a much more
> user-friendly format?

Others are decoding the TTC data format here.

datato.googlegroups.com

___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Toronto Potential Datasource

[Andrew MacKinnon]

On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 9:14 PM, Richard Weait  wrote:
> Take another look.  Parts of the road centreline data are at least
> years out of date.  And the centerline data freely mixes roads with
> geographic boundaries with rivers, some sharing "junctions".  That'll
> be a mess to convert properly.

> I think the addressing data will be a nice addition to OSM.  They
> haven't released the parcel data yet, but they have it and might
> release it.  The TTC data is for street cars and buses only so far.

The centerlines data is up to date - it shows several roads that I
know were built recently e.g. the Simcoe Street extension under the
train tracks and the renaming of part of Duncan St to Ed Mirvish Way.
However, we are probably best off keeping the existing road data (most
of it manually added by me from GeoBase NRN), and not attempting to
use data from the "centerlines" shapefile because the city centerlines
data shows dual carriageways as one road and does not show grade
separations, unlike the GeoBase data. There is no reason that we can't
copy missing features from it though.

There is quite a lot of raster data in the WMS layer "City GeoSpatial
Web Service". This includes much of the data in the shapefiles, such
as road centerlines, trails (though some minor trails are missing or
inaccurate), rivers (with names, many of which are missing in OSM
right now), and address data. It also includes parcels, but only in
raster format. It might be useful to trace features from here in JOSM.

The TTC data is pretty much useless to us because it is in a weird
non-documented format. Would the TTC be willing to allow us to copy
directly from its website, which includes route data in a much more
user-friendly format?

Andrew

___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Toronto Potential Datasource

[Sam Vekemans]

On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 5:17 PM, Andrew MacKinnon wrote:

> On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 8:13 PM, Sam Vekemans
>  wrote:
> > hi All,
> > It looks like the City of Toronto just joined in the cool-club :-)
> >
> > Thanks to user:Aude who looks to be a wikipedian... maybe could fix my
> > ramblings? :-)... lol ... maybe not..
> >  http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Aude
>
> Great, so I wasted the last several years mapping Toronto :)
>
> (I am exaggerating here, because there is a huge amount of data which
> simply isn't available in these datasets, and must be added manually.
> For example, the location of shops and other businesses.)
>
> 

You did a super job :)


> The CanVec data is junk compared to the City of Toronto data, so I
> think we'd be best off not importing it at all.
>
maybe 'junk' is not accurate... perhaps just "could be better"  would be
better :)

... this is why i have the .osm file available for the local team to decide
on what they want to copy into OSM. (BTW, there ARE other features in canvec
(total 89 features) that might not in the toronto set.


> Since this is such a complex job, I think that we need to arrange some
> sort of meetup (either in person or on IRC)


As far as actually converting the data to .osm format, i can do that for you
all (relatively easily).
 .. and i can make these .osm files available... And for the features i cant
convert to .osm format, someone else who is skilled in python & the
PostGISmagic, will be able to make the .osm files available for you all to
play with.


> to discuss how we will do
> this import.
>

And yes, thats what the team is for, to take a look at the .osm files in
JOSM... and see  and mark down what features are worthy to copy in, and what
aren't... and what method is easist.  (postGIS-automatch or manual copying).
.. and deciding who wants to work on what.

This process is really needs only a few local people, as each of the
contributors become the 'care-taker' of the data.. and are responsible for
ensuring that whatever data they they copy-in, they are aware of what they
are doing.

... so it becomes the local people who discide what they want to copy in.
So at my -end, i remove myself from the 'import' because all i am doing
is making a carbon copy of the source data. .. a direct tag match.
(literally download from NRCan / convert / Zip / upload to NRCan)
 Where if people see errors in this 'direct-match' that was done and think
more/less tags need to be added/removed, then thats a change for the
conversion script happens, and the tiles get re-converted. (would be on a 6
month basis, for sanity)

And regarding the "import script", it becomes a choice of 'eitlhor
ocal-bulk-import' or manual-bulk-import.  .. but the actual importing is
done locally. ... or even if you want to skip the converted .osm files and
use the source files, and make your own postGIS conversion.  That's why the
source files are included in the .zip


So ya, im working on CONVERTIING the various area of Canada data, and making
these files available. ... then someone else (or maybe me, if knowone wants
to) can open up the files and choose what to upload, and then upload it.


> Andrew MacKinnon
>
>
So i hope this helps, let me know if you want me to convert the data to .osm
sooner than later.

Cheers,
Sam

P.S. Havent all the roads already been automatched and imported?  I it looks
like it would be some 'sliding over', and adding in more attributes where
available & needed.

& Geographic boundaries dont ever actually touch things in the phsycal
world. (they might just-so-happen to be directly on-top), so it could be
moved over 5cm if needed to select it.
.. so then we have a 10cm 'neutral zone', with 5cm on eithor side of the
road centerline that makes the boundaries? :-)


> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

[Talk-ca] Waterloo Ontario OSM meetup

[Richard Weait]

Waterloo Ontario OSM Meetup on Wednesday 11 November 2009.

New and experienced OSM contributors welcome.

http://www.meetup.com/Waterloo-OSM/

___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Toronto Potential Datasource

[Richard Weait]

On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 8:17 PM, Andrew MacKinnon  wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 8:13 PM, Sam Vekemans
>  wrote:
>> hi All,
>> It looks like the City of Toronto just joined in the cool-club :-)
>>
>> Thanks to user:Aude who looks to be a wikipedian... maybe could fix my
>> ramblings? :-)... lol ... maybe not..
>>  http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Aude
>
> Great, so I wasted the last several years mapping Toronto :)
>
> (I am exaggerating here, because there is a huge amount of data which
> simply isn't available in these datasets, and must be added manually.
> For example, the location of shops and other businesses.)
>
> Looks like there is a huge amount of data here. Road centerlines,
> addresses, park boundaries, some recreational trails, rivers, churches
> and a few other things are all in shapefile format and can be imported
> easily. [ ... ]

Take another look.  Parts of the road centreline data are at least
years out of date.  And the centerline data freely mixes roads with
geographic boundaries with rivers, some sharing "junctions".  That'll
be a mess to convert properly.

I think the addressing data will be a nice addition to OSM.  They
haven't released the parcel data yet, but they have it and might
release it.  The TTC data is for street cars and buses only so far.

___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Toronto Potential Datasource

[Andrew MacKinnon]

On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 8:13 PM, Sam Vekemans
 wrote:
> hi All,
> It looks like the City of Toronto just joined in the cool-club :-)
>
> Thanks to user:Aude who looks to be a wikipedian... maybe could fix my
> ramblings? :-)... lol ... maybe not..
>  http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Aude

Great, so I wasted the last several years mapping Toronto :)

(I am exaggerating here, because there is a huge amount of data which
simply isn't available in these datasets, and must be added manually.
For example, the location of shops and other businesses.)

Looks like there is a huge amount of data here. Road centerlines,
addresses, park boundaries, some recreational trails, rivers, churches
and a few other things are all in shapefile format and can be imported
easily. The challenging part will be combining this data with data
that was mapped by hand or that is from GeoBase. Unfortunately, as far
as I can tell, the road data does not include grade separations
(bridges/tunnels), it represents dual carriageways as a single way,
and it does not include one way streets (unless I am missing
something).

TTC routes and schedules are available, but in a weird undocumented
text format (not Google Transit Feed Specification or something
standard like that). I have absolutely no idea how we will import this
data.

Various other data, such as property parcels and aerial imagery
(hopefully higher quality than Yahoo) is available through a Web
Mapping Service - it suggests that you use ArcGIS Explorer
(proprietary software) to view it. I'm not sure if there is any way to
view it with free software. Since this is presumably raster data, it
will have to wait until later.

The CanVec data is junk compared to the City of Toronto data, so I
think we'd be best off not importing it at all.

Since this is such a complex job, I think that we need to arrange some
sort of meetup (either in person or on IRC) to discuss how we will do
this import.

Andrew MacKinnon

___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

[Talk-ca] 030m area - toronto

[Sam Vekemans]

Hi there,
I converted the Toronto area, in light of the yesterdays announcement re:
City of Toronto data being available.

It can be found in the folder here
http://www.mediafire.com/?sharekey=3b30da6df5072902ab1eab3e9fa335ca3df72188dbcf8784

Cheers,
Sam

Twitter: @Acrosscanada
Blog:  http://Acrosscanadatrails.blogspot.com
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/sam.vekemans
OpenStreetMap IRC: http://irc.openstreetmap.org
@Acrosscanadatrails
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] [Talk-us] NY Bicycle Routes

[Adam Killian]

For whatever it's worth, I've been tagging the statewide cycle routes in 
Pennsylvania as RCN. I originally was tagging them as NCN, but there are 
actually 2 "interstate" cycle routes in the US, so I switched to RCN.

I always took Andy's remark that LCN could mean "London cycle network" 
to mean that LCN is the proper tag for networks within a metro area.

--Adam

Sam Vekemans wrote:
> Hi,
> how are you tagging state-wide cycle routes?
>
> I know we have
> lcn= for local cycle routes (named & not named)
> rcn=for regional cycle routes (ie metro area)
>
> then there's
> ncn=for nation wide
> but there's no
> scn (state cycle network) or pcn (province cycle network)
>
> in Quebec we have a state-wide network, but listed as ncn. (route de verte)
> (the Trans Canada Trail isnt a 'cycle route' per say, but elements of
> it allows cycling on different surfaces). Do we make a new render for
> a 'recreational trail'?
>
> Is there an established practice?
>
> Thanks,
> Sam Vekemans
> Across Canada Trails
>
>
> On 10/30/09, Richard Welty  wrote:
>   
>> i have added a page for NY state bike routes here:
>>
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/New_York/Bike_Routes
>>
>> and added my just created relation (not quite complete) for the Mohawk
>> Hudson Bikeway from Rotterdam Junction to Albany.
>>
>> lots of bike routes in NY need to be documented: http://www.ptny.org/
>>
>> richard
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-us mailing list
>> talk...@openstreetmap.org
>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>>
>> 
>
>
>   


___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] [Talk-us] NY Bicycle Routes

[Richard Welty]

[i'm new to the tagging discussion, just joined, please bear with me]

On 11/1/09 7:13 PM, Adam Glauser wrote:
> Sam's message has me somewhat confused as to who said what.  In terms 
> of cycling tagging in North America, where the legal framework is 
> fairly similar* most places, my approach has been as follows, FWIW.  
> First of all, it gets confusing quickly because we don't have much in 
> the way of bicycle-specific laws.
this originally came up because i had mentioned on talk-us that i had 
set up a NY Bike Routes page and had started working on some New York 
State related routes.
> LCN makes sense for roads designated as "recommended" cycling routes. 
> Cities like Toronto have roads and paths which have been deemed to be 
> safe for cycling, which may or may not have cycling-specific 
> infrastructure.
a specific example that's in front of me right now is the Mohawk-Hudson 
Bike-Hike Trail (aka the Mohawk-Hudson Bikeway). it spans two counties 
and is maintained by the towns it passes through for the most part, sort 
of sitting between local and regional. i've dithered over lcn vs rcn, 
the description of the distinction on the wiki pages doesn't make this 
very clear. it uses a mixture of dedicated paths on old canal towpaths 
and old RR roadbed, and a some sections of roadway shared with cars, but 
without dedicated bike paths (parallel parking, car doors, and everything.)

now the Mohawk-Hudson bikeway is also considered part of the longer Erie 
Canalway Trail, which is clearly an rcn, running as it does from Albany 
to Buffalo.

it might be good to look at the master plans that various cities are 
producing in the US in response to federal requirements. Albany, NY just 
finalized theirs within the past week, and copies may be obtained here:

http://www.albanyny.org/BreakingNews/09-10-30/completion_of_the_albany_bike_master_plan.aspx

there is a lot of detail about route designations and implementations in 
the final draft pdf file.
> RCN I'm not really sure about.  To me, the Route Verte in Quebec would 
> be a good example, though practical and perhaps linguistic reasons 
> have led to it being classified NCN.
>
and in the context i'm looking at, the NY Bike Routes and the canalway 
trails make sense as rcn tagged trails.

richard


___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] [Talk-us] NY Bicycle Routes

[Richard Welty]

On 10/30/09 6:59 PM, Sam Vekemans wrote:
> Hi,
> how are you tagging state-wide cycle routes?
>
> I know we have
> lcn= for local cycle routes (named&  not named)
> rcn=for regional cycle routes (ie metro area)
>
> then there's
> ncn=for nation wide
> but there's no
> scn (state cycle network) or pcn (province cycle network)
>
i'm using rcn, it seemed the closest. maybe scn should be created?

richard


___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] [Talk-us] NY Bicycle Routes

[Dan Homerick]

My impression is that the point of having different levels of cycle routes
(local, regional, national) is to avoid problems with names conflicting.
That would suggest that Adam's interpretation is the way to go -- after all,
there's not too much risk that two different cycle routes within the same
metro area will have the same designation, right?

- Dan

On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 4:06 PM, Adam Killian  wrote:

> For whatever it's worth, I've been tagging the statewide cycle routes in
> Pennsylvania as RCN. I originally was tagging them as NCN, but there are
> actually 2 "interstate" cycle routes in the US, so I switched to RCN.
>
> I always took Andy's remark that LCN could mean "London cycle network"
> to mean that LCN is the proper tag for networks within a metro area.
>
> --Adam
>
> Sam Vekemans wrote:
> > Hi,
> > how are you tagging state-wide cycle routes?
> >
> > I know we have
> > lcn= for local cycle routes (named & not named)
> > rcn=for regional cycle routes (ie metro area)
> >
> > then there's
> > ncn=for nation wide
> > but there's no
> > scn (state cycle network) or pcn (province cycle network)
> >
> > in Quebec we have a state-wide network, but listed as ncn. (route de
> verte)
> > (the Trans Canada Trail isnt a 'cycle route' per say, but elements of
> > it allows cycling on different surfaces). Do we make a new render for
> > a 'recreational trail'?
> >
> > Is there an established practice?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Sam Vekemans
> > Across Canada Trails
>
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

[Talk-ca] 083H area (Edmonton) v0.9.5.6 available

[Sam Vekemans]

Hi James,
I converted the 083H area, as i figured you might be able check the data.
... its available if ya like.
http://www.mediafire.com/?sharekey=3b30da6df5072902ab1eab3e9fa335ca700961820b4837a2

Is there other areas you'd like to see converted?

Cheers,
Sam


Twitter: @Acrosscanada
Blog:  http://Acrosscanadatrails.blogspot.com
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/sam.vekemans
OpenStreetMap IRC: http://irc.openstreetmap.org
@Acrosscanadatrails
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] GeobaseNHN-to-osm.bat

[Sam Vekemans]

Hi,
re: geobaseNHN &canvec

yup, thats where the 'maxnodes=2000' works, its set that it will break
up the file into 20 or lessISH (depending on file size) 'segments'
then you just upload them 1 at a time.
.
If im using the GeobaseNHN version, i would just 'follow the water'. I
started that in Nanaimo & it seemed to work well. It also gives
instant results on mapnik.
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=49.09126&lon=-123.89753&zoom=16&layers=B000FTF

... But with canvec i 'also' made a BIG file version of it. ... so it
can also be used to follow the water. ... so eithor way, it's just
about the same.

Cheers,
Sam

On 11/2/09, Daniel Begin  wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> Actually, I've found it difficult to understand where to get all the data
> available (until last weekend!).  I was disappointed when I got my hand on
> the Canvec .osm file and found out that there were neither roads nor
> hydrography.
>
> So, I would prefer having all the hydrography - and roads - in the Canvec
> version (instead of having to get the roads somewhere, hydrography somewhere
> else, and the rest of it in the Canvec file!).
>
> I would find it much easier to get one zip file with a complete coherent
> mapping content (and I guess I'm not alone in that case...)
>
> Cheers,
>
> Daniel
>
> Ps:  Another concern... Some of the Geobase NHN watersheds are so huge that
> I have serious doubt about common system's capacity to work with those
> files.
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: talk-ca-boun...@openstreetmap.org
> [mailto:talk-ca-boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Sam Vekemans
> Sent: November 2, 2009 21:25
> To: Frank Steggink; Yan Morin; Talk-CA OpenStreetMap
> Subject: [Talk-ca] GeobaseNHN-to-osm.bat
>
> Hi all,
> re: geobase -linear_network_flow & canvec's single line watercourse
>
> I think that (the water direction arrow) is the only feature that isnt
> available in CanVec, so i think that it will be fine to simply run the
> geobaseNHN-to-osm script where it only converts that 1 file.
> (its useful for whitewater maps)
>
>
> Re: waterbody
>
> I know that Yan already loaded the area in Quebec, which is great.
> So im wondering if it should be omited from the canvec version, and a
> python script be used to convert ALL geobaseNHN (as well as LNflow (or
> SLW)?
> Or should we use the canvec version of it?
>
> An idea is to just have the canvec script include it, and prefix the
> file name with "EXTRA_"
>
> Thoughts?
> Sam
>
>
> --
> Twitter: @Acrosscanada
> Blog:  http://Acrosscanadatrails.blogspot.com
> Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/sam.vekemans
> OpenStreetMap IRC: http://irc.openstreetmap.org
> @Acrosscanadatrails
>
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>
>


-- 
Twitter: @Acrosscanada
Blog:  http://Acrosscanadatrails.blogspot.com
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/sam.vekemans
OpenStreetMap IRC: http://irc.openstreetmap.org
@Acrosscanadatrails

___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca