Re: [Talk-ca] Aboriginal Lands
Bonjour All, Paul propose not to include aboriginal lands in the next Canvec.osm release. I would like to have more feedback from the community before excluding it :-) Regards, Daniel -Original Message- From: Paul Norman [mailto:penor...@mac.com] Sent: February 13, 2012 18:55 To: Bégin, Daniel Cc: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org Subject: RE: [Talk-ca] Aboriginal Lands Then I don't think they should be included in canvec.osm -Original Message- From: Bégin, Daniel [mailto:daniel.be...@rncan-nrcan.gc.ca] Sent: Monday, February 13, 2012 6:04 AM To: Paul Norman Cc: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org Subject: RE: [Talk-ca] Aboriginal Lands Bonjour again Paul, An example is not yet available but yes, it will form closed area split like large lake. That is a limitation of the Canvec.osm product for the moment :-( Daniel -Original Message- From: Paul Norman [mailto:penor...@mac.com] Sent: February 13, 2012 05:35 To: Bégin, Daniel; 'Tyler Gunn'; talk-ca@openstreetmap.org Subject: RE: [Talk-ca] Aboriginal Lands Does this mean that they would form closed areas split like large lakes are? If so, this makes them unsuitable for importing into OSM without significant work. Can we see an example area so that we know what you are proposing? -Original Message- From: Bégin, Daniel [mailto:daniel.be...@rncan-nrcan.gc.ca] Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2012 1:54 PM To: Tyler Gunn; talk-ca@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Aboriginal Lands Bonjour Tyler, Aboriginal Lands are already available in shape and gml format on GeoBase website. It provides a dataset for the entire country. The Canvec product is produced on 50K map sheet coverage. The Aboriginal Lands, if provided through Canvec.osm product, will complied to the 50K map sheet coverage. Best regards, Daniel -Original Message- From: Tyler Gunn [mailto:ty...@egunn.com] Sent: February 9, 2012 16:38 To: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Aboriginal Lands It is possible to include Aboriginal Lands in the next release of Canvec.osm. However, I'm trying to find a consensus in the community concerning the tags/values to use? I've found some links to... - boundary=administrative; admin_level =aboriginal_land - boundary=administrative; admin_level =2 to 4 - boundary=protected_area; protect_class=24 I'm curious how this information would be represented given the distribution of CanVec data in a tiled format? Given that administrative boundaries tend to span larger areas, I don't know if it would make sense to split these at tile boundaries. Were you thinking to provide these boundaries in a separate file of sorts? How these boundaries are represented should perhaps be driven from where they fit into the overall picture in terms of how Canada is split up? When I think of things like the country, provinces, territories, cities/towns/etc, these all fit nicely into the boundary=administrative and admin_level hierarchy. We have separate boundary types for provincial parks, national parks, etc, and I'd probably interpret the aboriginal lands the same way. So I think its entirely reasonable to represent these as: boundary=aboriginal_land Tyler ___ 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 mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Aboriginal Lands
If the Aboriginal lands are easily available from another source (GeoBase) and including them in Canvec.osm is going to make the data more complex I think the aboriginal lands should be excluded from Canvec.osm. -- Bernie Connors, P.Eng Service New Brunswick (506) 444-2077 45°56'25.21N, 66°38'53.65W www.snb.ca/geonb/ -Original Message- From: Bégin, Daniel [mailto:daniel.be...@rncan-nrcan.gc.ca] Sent: Tuesday, 2012-02-14 09:05 To: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Aboriginal Lands Bonjour All, Paul propose not to include aboriginal lands in the next Canvec.osm release. I would like to have more feedback from the community before excluding it :-) Regards, Daniel -Original Message- From: Paul Norman [mailto:penor...@mac.com] Sent: February 13, 2012 18:55 To: Bégin, Daniel Cc: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org Subject: RE: [Talk-ca] Aboriginal Lands Then I don't think they should be included in canvec.osm -Original Message- From: Bégin, Daniel [mailto:daniel.be...@rncan-nrcan.gc.ca] Sent: Monday, February 13, 2012 6:04 AM To: Paul Norman Cc: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org Subject: RE: [Talk-ca] Aboriginal Lands Bonjour again Paul, An example is not yet available but yes, it will form closed area split like large lake. That is a limitation of the Canvec.osm product for the moment :-( Daniel -Original Message- From: Paul Norman [mailto:penor...@mac.com] Sent: February 13, 2012 05:35 To: Bégin, Daniel; 'Tyler Gunn'; talk-ca@openstreetmap.org Subject: RE: [Talk-ca] Aboriginal Lands Does this mean that they would form closed areas split like large lakes are? If so, this makes them unsuitable for importing into OSM without significant work. Can we see an example area so that we know what you are proposing? -Original Message- From: Bégin, Daniel [mailto:daniel.be...@rncan-nrcan.gc.ca] Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2012 1:54 PM To: Tyler Gunn; talk-ca@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Aboriginal Lands Bonjour Tyler, Aboriginal Lands are already available in shape and gml format on GeoBase website. It provides a dataset for the entire country. The Canvec product is produced on 50K map sheet coverage. The Aboriginal Lands, if provided through Canvec.osm product, will complied to the 50K map sheet coverage. Best regards, Daniel -Original Message- From: Tyler Gunn [mailto:ty...@egunn.com] Sent: February 9, 2012 16:38 To: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Aboriginal Lands It is possible to include Aboriginal Lands in the next release of Canvec.osm. However, I'm trying to find a consensus in the community concerning the tags/values to use? I've found some links to... - boundary=administrative; admin_level =aboriginal_land - boundary=administrative; admin_level =2 to 4 - boundary=protected_area; protect_class=24 I'm curious how this information would be represented given the distribution of CanVec data in a tiled format? Given that administrative boundaries tend to span larger areas, I don't know if it would make sense to split these at tile boundaries. Were you thinking to provide these boundaries in a separate file of sorts? How these boundaries are represented should perhaps be driven from where they fit into the overall picture in terms of how Canada is split up? When I think of things like the country, provinces, territories, cities/towns/etc, these all fit nicely into the boundary=administrative and admin_level hierarchy. We have separate boundary types for provincial parks, national parks, etc, and I'd probably interpret the aboriginal lands the same way. So I think its entirely reasonable to represent these as: boundary=aboriginal_land Tyler ___ 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 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] Administrative Boundary
From the wiki, those look consistent with what Ive seen locally, although naturally I cant comment about Quebec. From: Bégin, Daniel [mailto:daniel.be...@rncan-nrcan.gc.ca] Sent: Monday, February 13, 2012 5:54 AM To: Paul Norman; talk-ca@openstreetmap.org Subject: RE: [Talk-ca] Administrative Boundary Bonjour Norman, ISO Level 7 (Upper municipality) refers to an administrative area like the County of Peterborough (ON), while the ISO Level 6 (Municipal Regional) refers to an administrative area like Eastern Townships in Québec (a group of county - a level that exist only in Québec) Regards, Daniel _ From: Paul Norman [mailto:penor...@mac.com] Sent: February 9, 2012 17:15 To: Bégin, Daniel; talk-ca@openstreetmap.org Subject: RE: [Talk-ca] Administrative Boundary Can you give an example of a municipal regional or upper municipality? Looking at the global usage, admin_level=5 is seldom used. I would think that Municipal Regional would be 6 and upper municipality would be 7, but I cant really say without examples. I would also suggest that these features in the .osm file not be closed just have the boundary, dont handle it like lakes where you have multiple areas you need to join where they cross tile bounds. From: Bégin, Daniel [mailto:daniel.be...@rncan-nrcan.gc.ca] Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2012 1:39 PM To: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org Subject: [Talk-ca] Administrative Boundary Bonjour again! Available administrative boundary will be included in the next release of Canvec.osm. From the wiki, here is the tagging values I'm going to use Municipal Regional: boundary=administrative; admin_level=5 Upper municipality: boundary=administrative; admin_level=6 Municipality:boundary=administrative; admin_level=8 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Admin_level http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Admin_level (Canada) Municipality admin_level=8 corresponds to gdf order in ISO standard. Municipal Regional Area and Upper Municipality (admin_level=5 and 6) are different from what the ISO standard says (gdf order=6 and 7). Is someone can confirm that admin_level=5 and 6 is really what is expected? Thanks again Daniel Bégin Centre d'information topographique de Sherbrooke Topographic Information Center of Sherbrooke Ressources Naturelles Canada / Natural Ressources Canada 2144, rue King Ouest, bureau 010 Sherbrooke (Québec) J1J 2E8 (819) 564-5600 ext.242, dbe...@nrcan.gc.ca ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Administrative Boundary
Hi Paul, are you saying that I should use ... ISO value for admin_level (6 7 - actually what is used in the GeoBase product), or what is identified in the wiki (5 6) http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Admin_level http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Admin_level Question mark! Daniel From: Paul Norman [mailto:penor...@mac.com] Sent: February 14, 2012 14:57 To: Bégin, Daniel; talk-ca@openstreetmap.org Subject: RE: [Talk-ca] Administrative Boundary From the wiki, those look consistent with what I've seen locally, although naturally I can't comment about Quebec. From: Bégin, Daniel [mailto:daniel.be...@rncan-nrcan.gc.ca] Sent: Monday, February 13, 2012 5:54 AM To: Paul Norman; talk-ca@openstreetmap.org Subject: RE: [Talk-ca] Administrative Boundary Bonjour Norman, ISO Level 7 (Upper municipality) refers to an administrative area like the County of Peterborough (ON), while the ISO Level 6 (Municipal Regional) refers to an administrative area like Eastern Townships in Québec (a group of county - a level that exist only in Québec) Regards, Daniel From: Paul Norman [mailto:penor...@mac.com] Sent: February 9, 2012 17:15 To: Bégin, Daniel; talk-ca@openstreetmap.org Subject: RE: [Talk-ca] Administrative Boundary Can you give an example of a municipal regional or upper municipality? Looking at the global usage, admin_level=5 is seldom used. I would think that Municipal Regional would be 6 and upper municipality would be 7, but I can't really say without examples. I would also suggest that these features in the .osm file not be closed - just have the boundary, don't handle it like lakes where you have multiple areas you need to join where they cross tile bounds. From: Bégin, Daniel [mailto:daniel.be...@rncan-nrcan.gc.ca] Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2012 1:39 PM To: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org Subject: [Talk-ca] Administrative Boundary Bonjour again! Available administrative boundary will be included in the next release of Canvec.osm. From the wiki, here is the tagging values I'm going to use... Municipal Regional: boundary=administrative; admin_level=5 Upper municipality: boundary=administrative; admin_level=6 Municipality:boundary=administrative; admin_level=8 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Admin_level http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Admin_level (Canada) Municipality admin_level=8 corresponds to gdf order in ISO standard. Municipal Regional Area and Upper Municipality (admin_level=5 and 6) are different from what the ISO standard says (gdf order=6 and 7). Is someone can confirm that admin_level=5 and 6 is really what is expected? Thanks again Daniel Bégin Centre d'information topographique de Sherbrooke Topographic Information Center of Sherbrooke Ressources Naturelles Canada / Natural Ressources Canada 2144, rue King Ouest, bureau 010 Sherbrooke (Québec) J1J 2E8 (819) 564-5600 ext.242, dbe...@nrcan.gc.ca ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Aboriginal Lands
I'm not so concerned with the aboriginal lands as with municipal boundaries. Aboriginal lands are unlikely to span multiple sub-tiles unless they lie on an edge, but cities often cover several sub-tiles. Is converting the boundaries from polygons to linestrings an option? -Original Message- From: Connors, Bernie (SNB) [mailto:bernie.conn...@snb.ca] Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 5:56 AM To: 'Bégin, Daniel'; talk-ca@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Aboriginal Lands If the Aboriginal lands are easily available from another source (GeoBase) and including them in Canvec.osm is going to make the data more complex I think the aboriginal lands should be excluded from Canvec.osm. -- Bernie Connors, P.Eng Service New Brunswick (506) 444-2077 45°56'25.21N, 66°38'53.65W www.snb.ca/geonb/ -Original Message- From: Bégin, Daniel [mailto:daniel.be...@rncan-nrcan.gc.ca] Sent: Tuesday, 2012-02-14 09:05 To: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Aboriginal Lands Bonjour All, Paul propose not to include aboriginal lands in the next Canvec.osm release. I would like to have more feedback from the community before excluding it :-) Regards, Daniel -Original Message- From: Paul Norman [mailto:penor...@mac.com] Sent: February 13, 2012 18:55 To: Bégin, Daniel Cc: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org Subject: RE: [Talk-ca] Aboriginal Lands Then I don't think they should be included in canvec.osm -Original Message- From: Bégin, Daniel [mailto:daniel.be...@rncan-nrcan.gc.ca] Sent: Monday, February 13, 2012 6:04 AM To: Paul Norman Cc: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org Subject: RE: [Talk-ca] Aboriginal Lands Bonjour again Paul, An example is not yet available but yes, it will form closed area split like large lake. That is a limitation of the Canvec.osm product for the moment :-( Daniel -Original Message- From: Paul Norman [mailto:penor...@mac.com] Sent: February 13, 2012 05:35 To: Bégin, Daniel; 'Tyler Gunn'; talk-ca@openstreetmap.org Subject: RE: [Talk-ca] Aboriginal Lands Does this mean that they would form closed areas split like large lakes are? If so, this makes them unsuitable for importing into OSM without significant work. Can we see an example area so that we know what you are proposing? -Original Message- From: Bégin, Daniel [mailto:daniel.be...@rncan-nrcan.gc.ca] Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2012 1:54 PM To: Tyler Gunn; talk-ca@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Aboriginal Lands Bonjour Tyler, Aboriginal Lands are already available in shape and gml format on GeoBase website. It provides a dataset for the entire country. The Canvec product is produced on 50K map sheet coverage. The Aboriginal Lands, if provided through Canvec.osm product, will complied to the 50K map sheet coverage. Best regards, Daniel -Original Message- From: Tyler Gunn [mailto:ty...@egunn.com] Sent: February 9, 2012 16:38 To: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Aboriginal Lands It is possible to include Aboriginal Lands in the next release of Canvec.osm. However, I'm trying to find a consensus in the community concerning the tags/values to use? I've found some links to... - boundary=administrative; admin_level =aboriginal_land - boundary=administrative; admin_level =2 to 4 - boundary=protected_area; protect_class=24 I'm curious how this information would be represented given the distribution of CanVec data in a tiled format? Given that administrative boundaries tend to span larger areas, I don't know if it would make sense to split these at tile boundaries. Were you thinking to provide these boundaries in a separate file of sorts? How these boundaries are represented should perhaps be driven from where they fit into the overall picture in terms of how Canada is split up? When I think of things like the country, provinces, territories, cities/towns/etc, these all fit nicely into the boundary=administrative and admin_level hierarchy. We have separate boundary types for provincial parks, national parks, etc, and I'd probably interpret the aboriginal lands the same way. So I think its entirely reasonable to represent these as: boundary=aboriginal_land Tyler ___ 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 mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca ___ Talk-ca mailing list
Re: [Talk-ca] Aboriginal Lands
Paul, I understand that the aboriginal lands (if included), and administrative boundary, should be presented as ways, not multipolygons. It is on my duty list! Daniel -Original Message- From: Paul Norman [mailto:penor...@mac.com] Sent: February 14, 2012 15:24 To: 'Connors, Bernie (SNB)'; Bégin, Daniel; talk-ca@openstreetmap.org Subject: RE: [Talk-ca] Aboriginal Lands I'm not so concerned with the aboriginal lands as with municipal boundaries. Aboriginal lands are unlikely to span multiple sub-tiles unless they lie on an edge, but cities often cover several sub-tiles. Is converting the boundaries from polygons to linestrings an option? -Original Message- From: Connors, Bernie (SNB) [mailto:bernie.conn...@snb.ca] Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 5:56 AM To: 'Bégin, Daniel'; talk-ca@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Aboriginal Lands If the Aboriginal lands are easily available from another source (GeoBase) and including them in Canvec.osm is going to make the data more complex I think the aboriginal lands should be excluded from Canvec.osm. -- Bernie Connors, P.Eng Service New Brunswick (506) 444-2077 45°56'25.21N, 66°38'53.65W www.snb.ca/geonb/ -Original Message- From: Bégin, Daniel [mailto:daniel.be...@rncan-nrcan.gc.ca] Sent: Tuesday, 2012-02-14 09:05 To: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Aboriginal Lands Bonjour All, Paul propose not to include aboriginal lands in the next Canvec.osm release. I would like to have more feedback from the community before excluding it :-) Regards, Daniel -Original Message- From: Paul Norman [mailto:penor...@mac.com] Sent: February 13, 2012 18:55 To: Bégin, Daniel Cc: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org Subject: RE: [Talk-ca] Aboriginal Lands Then I don't think they should be included in canvec.osm -Original Message- From: Bégin, Daniel [mailto:daniel.be...@rncan-nrcan.gc.ca] Sent: Monday, February 13, 2012 6:04 AM To: Paul Norman Cc: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org Subject: RE: [Talk-ca] Aboriginal Lands Bonjour again Paul, An example is not yet available but yes, it will form closed area split like large lake. That is a limitation of the Canvec.osm product for the moment :-( Daniel -Original Message- From: Paul Norman [mailto:penor...@mac.com] Sent: February 13, 2012 05:35 To: Bégin, Daniel; 'Tyler Gunn'; talk-ca@openstreetmap.org Subject: RE: [Talk-ca] Aboriginal Lands Does this mean that they would form closed areas split like large lakes are? If so, this makes them unsuitable for importing into OSM without significant work. Can we see an example area so that we know what you are proposing? -Original Message- From: Bégin, Daniel [mailto:daniel.be...@rncan-nrcan.gc.ca] Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2012 1:54 PM To: Tyler Gunn; talk-ca@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Aboriginal Lands Bonjour Tyler, Aboriginal Lands are already available in shape and gml format on GeoBase website. It provides a dataset for the entire country. The Canvec product is produced on 50K map sheet coverage. The Aboriginal Lands, if provided through Canvec.osm product, will complied to the 50K map sheet coverage. Best regards, Daniel -Original Message- From: Tyler Gunn [mailto:ty...@egunn.com] Sent: February 9, 2012 16:38 To: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Aboriginal Lands It is possible to include Aboriginal Lands in the next release of Canvec.osm. However, I'm trying to find a consensus in the community concerning the tags/values to use? I've found some links to... - boundary=administrative; admin_level =aboriginal_land - boundary=administrative; admin_level =2 to 4 - boundary=protected_area; protect_class=24 I'm curious how this information would be represented given the distribution of CanVec data in a tiled format? Given that administrative boundaries tend to span larger areas, I don't know if it would make sense to split these at tile boundaries. Were you thinking to provide these boundaries in a separate file of sorts? How these boundaries are represented should perhaps be driven from where they fit into the overall picture in terms of how Canada is split up? When I think of things like the country, provinces, territories, cities/towns/etc, these all fit nicely into the boundary=administrative and admin_level hierarchy. We have separate boundary types for provincial parks, national parks, etc, and I'd probably interpret the aboriginal lands the same way. So I think its entirely reasonable to represent these as: boundary=aboriginal_land Tyler ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
