Re: [Talk-ca] Canadian imports: good or bad?
From: Ian Bruseker [mailto:ian.bruse...@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2012 9:31 PM To: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Canadian imports: good or bad? On 2012-04-15, at 6:37 PM, Steve Singer st...@ssinger.info wrote: I also feel that not of all data sources are equal. Even within Canvec some layers are excellent (ie roads and lakes in most of the country) while others are often so out of date it isn't worth the time to import (ie buildings in much of Southern Ontario) That's the third mention in a row of bad building data in Canvec. I'll chime in on that to say I found a hospital in St. Albert, Alberta that was marked as having come from an import. The hospital hasn't been there for 20 years. The new building is several kilometers away. Not just bad, full on dangerous if someone actually believed the data in OSM and tried to find help when they were hurt. :-( I thought it was just BC but it sounds like it's everywhere. Would I be correct in summarizing the opinions so far as 1. The buildings data from CanVec should not be imported unless it can be verified against imagery, in which case you might as well trace the buildings from imagery. 2. There is not a consensus among the community that CanVec data can be imported without verifying the data for internal consistency and where possible against imagery. ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Canadian imports: good or bad?
Hello: I would take from this discussion that canvec data needs to be imported into the white spaces of Canada. I may be missing some historical experience / discussion of this process. Part of the fun aspect of OSM is finding things wrong on the map and correcting it. I think this is how people get hooked on OSM. Letting errors creep in may in fact help to get more people interested in OSM. Some guide lines should be developed to give mappers direction on how to import canvec. When a mapper undertakes to import a canvec square due care be taken to verify as much as possible using imagery overlay. I realize with some imagery your going to be awful lucky if you can even spot a road or river down there :-) When importing canvec the mapper / importer should treat the area they are importing as they would their own neighbourhood. If the area importing contain a large body of water convert it to natural= coastline. Run validator against each tile to minimize crossing ways and such. When streams cross a road assume that a culvert exists and the stream go under the road. Judgment would have to be used depending on the some urban, remoteness, primary road vs hiking trail aspect. I'm at a loss what should be done with those big square polygons? Joining / removing ways that are spit due to the tile nature of the canvec data. Now if someone would move that darn cloud in Sydney so I could tell if the train tracks go under the road :-) Comments, I think I should probably crawl under a rock I may have stirred a hornets nest. I'm going to go out geocaching, judging by the number of caches in an area there must be a trail there that not on the map yet. Andrew signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
[Talk-ca] STM opens its data
Hi guys and gals, I haven't looked into this at all, but it's exciting to see the Société de transport de Montréal, the local transit authority, open it's scheduling data. I assume in here we will also find positioning data of all the bus stops. A possible source of import? http://www.stm.info/English/en-bref/a-developpeurs.htm Cheers, Tim FitzGerald ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Canadian imports: good or bad?
Bonjour Paul, and all osmers Let me summarize the situation regarding NRCan-Canvec data. Good news... - about a thousand files (maps) are brand new around Ellesmere Island - Road network is updated every year for most of the provinces Old stories... - YK,NT,NU were checked for changes about 10 years ago using 20m resolution imageries. Some areas were updated using this imagery. - We are replacing some of our hydrographic network with provincial data (BC was the first replaced). It is usually more than 10 years old , our is older than 25. Much older stories... Actually, the rest of the NRCan-Canvec content is older than 25 years (average 30, older 64). It concerns southern Canada... - Buildings, railroads and other structures (obviously) - Vegetation (wooded areas) - could soon be replaced with a 5 year old automated classification using 30m imagery - Wetlands - Built-up areas You should not be surprise that some features are not up-to-date... I know that I've already done this exercise before but it is important that the community is aware of the limitation of the data. This is the same for all NRCan digital product (Canvec, Toporama, ...) and worst for paper maps :-( As mentioned in another email, the main objective of providing the Canvec.osm product was to help the community to focus on updating available data instead of recapturing everything from scratch. And from there, eventually use it to update our products. Since then, as a lot of Canvec data was imported, and updated ... - we now use OSM data for changes detection (it help us planning GPS field campaign for road updating in some provinces) - we are looking at using OSM data to help us updating the entire Canvec Product! It looks like a win-win situation for me! Best regards, Daniel Note: If anybody think this information should be added to the Canvec wiki page, you can use the above information -Original Message- From: Paul Norman [mailto:penor...@mac.com] Sent: April 17, 2012 05:00 To: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Canadian imports: good or bad? From: Ian Bruseker [mailto:ian.bruse...@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2012 9:31 PM To: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Canadian imports: good or bad? On 2012-04-15, at 6:37 PM, Steve Singer st...@ssinger.info wrote: I also feel that not of all data sources are equal. Even within Canvec some layers are excellent (ie roads and lakes in most of the country) while others are often so out of date it isn't worth the time to import (ie buildings in much of Southern Ontario) That's the third mention in a row of bad building data in Canvec. I'll chime in on that to say I found a hospital in St. Albert, Alberta that was marked as having come from an import. The hospital hasn't been there for 20 years. The new building is several kilometers away. Not just bad, full on dangerous if someone actually believed the data in OSM and tried to find help when they were hurt. :-( I thought it was just BC but it sounds like it's everywhere. Would I be correct in summarizing the opinions so far as 1. The buildings data from CanVec should not be imported unless it can be verified against imagery, in which case you might as well trace the buildings from imagery. 2. There is not a consensus among the community that CanVec data can be imported without verifying the data for internal consistency and where possible against imagery. ___ 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] STM opens its data
Tim As I understand it, the second paragraph of the text below restricts right. Could we interpret this as being in accordance with ODbl? Free access to STM Data In accordance with the provisions of these terms, the STM permits the use of its Data, without charge or exclusivity, from and in all current and future media and formats, for any and all legitimate purpose anywhere in the world. You acknowledge and agree that you hold no proprietary rights, including any intellectual property rights, on any STM Data, as these rights belong exclusively to the STM. Pierre De ： Tim FitzGerald Date/heure ： 2012-04-17 12:34:55 A ： talk-ca Cc ： Sujet ： [Talk-ca] STM opens its data Hi guys and gals, I haven't looked into this at all, but it's exciting to see the Société de transport de Montréal, the local transit authority, open it's scheduling data. I assume in here we will also find positioning data of all the bus stops. A possible source of import? http://www.stm.info/English/en-bref/a-developpeurs.htm Cheers, Tim FitzGerald ___ 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] Canadian imports: good or bad?
Daniel, As always, your work is really appreciated. Would it be possible, for at least some of the data, to have the age of the data included in the releases? While age by itself is not necessarily indicitave of the quality of the data, it is a factor that could help users when deciding to use it or not. For example, if I saw a road that was surveyed and built within the last 5 years I'd tend to put some trust in its location. If the data was 25 years old, not so much. On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 05:34:30PM +, Bégin, Daniel wrote: Bonjour Paul, and all osmers Let me summarize the situation regarding NRCan-Canvec data. Good news... - about a thousand files (maps) are brand new around Ellesmere Island - Road network is updated every year for most of the provinces Old stories... - YK,NT,NU were checked for changes about 10 years ago using 20m resolution imageries. Some areas were updated using this imagery. - We are replacing some of our hydrographic network with provincial data (BC was the first replaced). It is usually more than 10 years old , our is older than 25. Much older stories... Actually, the rest of the NRCan-Canvec content is older than 25 years (average 30, older 64). It concerns southern Canada... - Buildings, railroads and other structures (obviously) - Vegetation (wooded areas) - could soon be replaced with a 5 year old automated classification using 30m imagery - Wetlands - Built-up areas You should not be surprise that some features are not up-to-date... I know that I've already done this exercise before but it is important that the community is aware of the limitation of the data. This is the same for all NRCan digital product (Canvec, Toporama, ...) and worst for paper maps :-( As mentioned in another email, the main objective of providing the Canvec.osm product was to help the community to focus on updating available data instead of recapturing everything from scratch. And from there, eventually use it to update our products. Since then, as a lot of Canvec data was imported, and updated ... - we now use OSM data for changes detection (it help us planning GPS field campaign for road updating in some provinces) - we are looking at using OSM data to help us updating the entire Canvec Product! It looks like a win-win situation for me! Best regards, Daniel Note: If anybody think this information should be added to the Canvec wiki page, you can use the above information -Original Message- From: Paul Norman [mailto:penor...@mac.com] Sent: April 17, 2012 05:00 To: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Canadian imports: good or bad? From: Ian Bruseker [mailto:ian.bruse...@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2012 9:31 PM To: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Canadian imports: good or bad? On 2012-04-15, at 6:37 PM, Steve Singer st...@ssinger.info wrote: I also feel that not of all data sources are equal. Even within Canvec some layers are excellent (ie roads and lakes in most of the country) while others are often so out of date it isn't worth the time to import (ie buildings in much of Southern Ontario) That's the third mention in a row of bad building data in Canvec. I'll chime in on that to say I found a hospital in St. Albert, Alberta that was marked as having come from an import. The hospital hasn't been there for 20 years. The new building is several kilometers away. Not just bad, full on dangerous if someone actually believed the data in OSM and tried to find help when they were hurt. :-( I thought it was just BC but it sounds like it's everywhere. Would I be correct in summarizing the opinions so far as 1. The buildings data from CanVec should not be imported unless it can be verified against imagery, in which case you might as well trace the buildings from imagery. 2. There is not a consensus among the community that CanVec data can be imported without verifying the data for internal consistency and where possible against imagery. ___ 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 -- James (Jay) Treacy tre...@debian.org ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
