Re: [Talk-ca] Routing errors, turn restrictions and median crossovers
On 11-03-06 00:16 , Samuel Longiaru wrote: OK... access=no, emergency=yes. I'll tag one like that and see what the routing software does after the next update. If it's any consolation, Garmin's maps will suggest u-turns in the middle of highways too. Every time I want to go to Point Edward, the Garmin tells me to pull a U-ey in the middle of the 402. Stewart ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Here we go again...
Hi Dan, Your procedure sounds pretty similar to mine, and working around Kamloops likely is equivalent in terms of the kinds of features we see. You probably do this as well, but before running the validator, I step around the edge of the import and connect streams, powerlines, and anything else that I think needs connecting. The auto-fix on duplicate nodes just seems to merge the nodes but doesn't combine the ways. As you, I very rarely have found the need to import a road as previous GeoBase or other imports have already provided the same information. I simplify some features as well (streams and some lake shorelines mostly) but I try to remember to simplify before merging the selection onto the OSM layer. Simplifying later often gives the warning that you are deleting nodes outside the uploaded data area. If I get a conflict, this is where it happens. You do, however, seem to have much better luck than I have had on failed imports. On 4 or 5 different occasions, an upload has hung (sometimes for hours) and a cancel has resulted in nodes only (no way information) being uploaded to the server. This behavior is quite consistent. The result is 6-8,000 isolated nodes blasted across the import block. I've then had to download the area from OSM and manually remove each node. Rather frustrating. I don't know the ins and outs of the OSM backend, but could you be picking up errors at that point? JOSM never seems to sort it out for me. :( Sam L Kamloops ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
[Talk-ca] Boundary and updates
Hi all, First, the routing apps we are being using for two days is pretty useful, I've been able to make many corrections to the road network I uploaded in the area for connection/one way errors. However, I need advises on another topic... I'm uploading Canvec around Canada/US boundary and I try to get a clean result both side. The area I'm working on have the US-Canadian boundary defined by a small river. The river has changed his course over the years and neither the Canvec boundary nor the OSM boundary fit with the river anymore. Updating the river raises many questions. I worked a lot of time updating the river that was mapped as an area. The job is not finished yet and I wonder if replacing it with a simple way tagged waterway=river would be acceptable ? - The potential replacing way is already uploaded. What do we do with the boundary? Keep the OSM untouched? Displace the boundary over the river? Any comments or suggestions Have a look http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=45.0371lon=-71.4813zoom=14layers=M Daniel ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Here we go again...
OK... I had been using chunks of 2000, but will make it smaller. Hopefully that helps. Thanks Sam L -Original Message- From: john whelan jwhelan0...@gmail.com To: Samuel Longiaru longi...@shaw.ca Cc: Dan Charrois d...@syz.com, Talk-CA OpenStreetMap talk-ca@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Here we go again... Date: Sun, 06 Mar 2011 12:12:00 -0500 In JOSM when uploading go to advanced configuration or the advanced tab and use upload data in chunks of objects. Drop the chunk level down to 400 or 500 and it goes much smoother. Cheerio John On 6 March 2011 11:15, Samuel Longiaru longi...@shaw.ca wrote: Hi Dan, Your procedure sounds pretty similar to mine, and working around Kamloops likely is equivalent in terms of the kinds of features we see. You probably do this as well, but before running the validator, I step around the edge of the import and connect streams, powerlines, and anything else that I think needs connecting. The auto-fix on duplicate nodes just seems to merge the nodes but doesn't combine the ways. As you, I very rarely have found the need to import a road as previous GeoBase or other imports have already provided the same information. I simplify some features as well (streams and some lake shorelines mostly) but I try to remember to simplify before merging the selection onto the OSM layer. Simplifying later often gives the warning that you are deleting nodes outside the uploaded data area. If I get a conflict, this is where it happens. You do, however, seem to have much better luck than I have had on failed imports. On 4 or 5 different occasions, an upload has hung (sometimes for hours) and a cancel has resulted in nodes only (no way information) being uploaded to the server. This behavior is quite consistent. The result is 6-8,000 isolated nodes blasted across the import block. I've then had to download the area from OSM and manually remove each node. Rather frustrating. I don't know the ins and outs of the OSM backend, but could you be picking up errors at that point? JOSM never seems to sort it out for me. :( Sam L Kamloops ___ 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] Boundary and updates
On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 3:39 PM, Daniel Begin jfd...@hotmail.com wrote: Hi all, [ ... ] I'm uploading Canvec around Canada/US boundary and I try to get a clean result both side. The area I'm working on have the US-Canadian boundary defined by a small river. The river has changed his course over the years and neither the Canvec boundary nor the OSM boundary fit with the river anymore. [ ... ] What do we do with the boundary? Keep the OSM untouched? Displace the boundary over the river? Any comments or suggestions Bonjour, Daniel! There have been similar discussion on talk@ and other osm lists. There are competing issues in play. Correctness: Sometimes the boundary moves with the feature / river and other times the boundary stays in the historic position. I don't know what the case is for this border. IIRC, the Can/US border was referenced from an International Boundary Commission source, so it is the internationally recognized boundary, not a boundary that might be claimed / disputed by arbitrary Hatfields / McCoys on either side of the border. I'd prefer to stick with an arbitrated source if possible. Convenience: If the border moves with the features, it sure would be more convenient to have them share the same way. If not, then not, because we'll be discussing this again after the next heavy rain (and imagery update) ;-) The River: (the land feature, not the Bruce Springsteen album) Regarding the river, I prefer to see polygon rivers with a flow line if the imagery supports mapping this way. I prefer this for purely aesthetic reasons and that probably makes me shallow. It is not for me to assign my mapping preferences on other mappers and so I fully support your decision to map this river as polygons, or lines only. Best regards, Richard ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
[Talk-ca] Canvec vs. GPS
Hey everyone I am presently preparing a careful import of Canvec data into Mantario area. I have stumbled across a trail that appears to be a GPS track. The problem is that while this trail did not overlap with the old old low detail lake data, it conflicts in some areas with the Canvec data. Which data should I adjust? The overlap between the two ranges for 17cm to 30m. An inspection using Landsat (sadly the best imagery for the region) favours Canvec. I realize that this is a tricky subject. I'm assuming Godwin's law does not apply to this list. Sam Dyck ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Canvec vs. GPS
Being cynical I'd tend to favour CANVEC they tend to have spent more money on their GPS units. Cheerio John On 6 March 2011 20:44, Samuel Dyck samueld...@gmail.com wrote: Hey everyone I am presently preparing a careful import of Canvec data into Mantario area. I have stumbled across a trail that appears to be a GPS track. The problem is that while this trail did not overlap with the old old low detail lake data, it conflicts in some areas with the Canvec data. Which data should I adjust? The overlap between the two ranges for 17cm to 30m. An inspection using Landsat (sadly the best imagery for the region) favours Canvec. I realize that this is a tricky subject. I'm assuming Godwin's law does not apply to this list. Sam Dyck ___ 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] Canvec vs. GPS
On 7 March 2011 01:44, Samuel Dyck samueld...@gmail.com wrote: Hey everyone I am presently preparing a careful import of Canvec data into Mantario area. I have stumbled across a trail that appears to be a GPS track. The problem is that while this trail did not overlap with the old old low detail lake data, it conflicts in some areas with the Canvec data. Which data should I adjust? The overlap between the two ranges for 17cm to 30m. An inspection using Landsat (sadly the best imagery for the region) favours Canvec. I realize that this is a tricky subject. I'm assuming Godwin's law does not apply to this list. Hello, One thing to keep in mind is that GPS tracks are not the ultimate answer to everything. If you want to have reliable data from GPS, you would want to have multiple traces from the same area. A mainstream GPS receiver will have an average precision ranging from 5m to 10m. They can be quite useful though to locate more precisely some features. Also bear in mind that aerial imagery is also not perfect and might not be properly aligned. In the end, I would trust in your case the CANVEC data since it is supported by the imagery, but nothing prevents you at some point to go over with your GPS device to go and take some measurement to check if CANVEC and/or landsat are really accurate. It is a great strength of OSM to be able to import some data and then go and check if it really makes sense on the ground, as it could have changed since the landsat picture was taken. One perfect example is one street in where I used to live which has a roundabout. Only a commercial provider had it right and all aerial imagery that I have seen was not showing it, including the French cadastre. So don't worry too much, import the data if you can and then try to go and check later. Emilie Laffray ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Canvec vs. GPS
On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 6:57 PM, john whelan jwhelan0...@gmail.com wrote: Being cynical I'd tend to favour CANVEC they tend to have spent more money on their GPS units. Based on experience I'd go the exact opposite way as Canvec data can be extremely old and inaccurate. Today I removed a Canvec way describing the Blackmud Creek from the database. Dan Charrois had imported the waterway from Canvec, and the imported way overlapped the existing way. Remnants of that can be seen here for a short while. http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=53.4262lon=-113.4888zoom=14layers=M Both renditions can be seen where the creek crosses Ellerslie Road. Hiigher zoom levels have already been rendered. Canvec buildings are horrendous: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=53.42826lon=-113.49479zoom=17layers=M http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=53.4145lon=-113.54344zoom=17layers=M http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=53.43157lon=-113.54426zoom=17layers=M Feet on the ground are the best judge of accuracy. James VE6SRV ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
