[Talk-ca] admin_level of canadian cities

[Bruno Remy]

hi,

What do you suggest for "admin_level" of canadian cities, because i noticed
difference between the official Canadian recommendation on Openstreetmap
wiki (
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Admin_level#10_admin_level_values_for_specific_countries)
witch is suggesting LEVEL 8 ... whereas you can check LEVEL 4 for big
cities in Canada on Opensstreetmap (Quebec City as instance...)

So ... do we adjust our admin_level according to the canadian section of
openstreetmap's wiki?
Or do you suggest to keep on tracks on LEVEL 8 usage... and why?

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

Re: [Talk-ca] admin_level of canadian cities

[Andrew Lester]

As far as I can tell, the reason Quebec City is tagged as admin_level=4 is 
because it’s the capital of the province. As per your linked wiki page, 
provinces are admin_level=4. For any old non-capital city, they should be 
tagged admin_level=8. Keep in mind that admin_level=* is primarily intended for 
use on boundary ways and relations, not the place=* node. The usage of 
admin_level=*and capital=* on city nodes is part of a proposed feature covering 
capitals (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/capital). 
Contrary to what that proposal outlines, the common usage according to Taginfo 
(http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/capital#values) seems to be that 
capitals are tagged as capital=[admin level number] (ie. Quebec City would be 
tagged capital=4).

 

Andrew Lester

Victoria, BC

 

From: Bruno Remy [mailto:bremy.qc...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2012 10:44 AM
To: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
Subject: [Talk-ca] admin_level of canadian cities

 

hi,

What do you suggest for "admin_level" of canadian cities, because i noticed 
difference between the official Canadian recommendation on Openstreetmap wiki 
(http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Admin_level#10_admin_level_values_for_specific_countries)
 witch is suggesting LEVEL 8 ... whereas you can check LEVEL 4 for big cities 
in Canada on Opensstreetmap (Quebec City as instance...)

So ... do we adjust our admin_level according to the canadian section of 
openstreetmap's wiki?
Or do you suggest to keep on tracks on LEVEL 8 usage... and why?

-- 
Bruno Remy

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

Re: [Talk-ca] Images satellite Bing Montréal et Québec

[Bruno Remy]

Openstreetmap a annoncé sur son tweeter il y a quelques jour, la
publication de nouvelles cartes détaillées de BING dans certaines regions
du canada je n'ai pas vu de différence à Québec mais peut-être que
St-hilaire n'est plus la seule exception hors de ces deux grandes
villes ;-)


Le 7 juin 2012 09:23, Harald Kliems  a écrit :

> Just to add to this:
> in the Montreal area the alignment of the Bing imagery in my
> experience is very good. It is nonetheless a good idea to always also
> download the GPS tracks and make sure the images match those (and the
> Canvec import data).
>
> Harald (who has done a lot of aerial imagery-supported mapping in the
> Montreal area)
>
> 2012/6/6 Pierre Béland :
> > Pour ceux intéressés à cartographier dans la région de Montréal et de
> > Québec, notez que l'imagerie Bing est très détaillée à Montréal et
> Québec.
> > À Montréal, cette couverture s'étend sur une partie de la rive-sud et de
> la
> > rive nord. Ne pas oublier d'indiquer source=Bing si vous utilisez ces
> > images.
> >
> > Pour obtenir les images de haute résolution, il faut zoomer en détail.
> Puis
> > soudainement, les images de très basse résolution sont remplacées par les
> > images de meilleure qualité. Curieusement, la région du mont St-Hilaire
> est
> > aussi couverte.
> >
> > Es-ce que quelqu'un connait l'étendue de ces images de haute résolution
> et
> > les plans de Microsoft à cet égard ?
> >
> > Pierre
> >
> > ___
> > Talk-ca mailing list
> > Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Please use encrypted communication whenever possible!
> Key-ID: 0x199DC50F
>
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>



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

[Talk-ca] BING Maps high resolution in Canada

[Bruno Remy]

Openstreetmap recently annonced on his tweeter , release of brand new high
definition satelite vues of BING in Canada.
So... hope it 'll help you were you're mapping ;-)

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

[Talk-ca] Re : admin_level of canadian cities

[Pierre Béland]

Bruno, 


In the wiki page it is clearly indicated to use admin_level=8 for 
municipalities in Canada. Levels 9 and 10 are used for subdivisions into the 
municipality (ie. arrondissement and neighborhood / quartiers ).
 
Pierre 



>
> De : Bruno Remy 
>À : talk-ca@openstreetmap.org 
>Envoyé le : Jeudi 14 juin 2012 13h44
>Objet : [Talk-ca] admin_level of canadian cities
> 
>
>hi,
>
>What do you suggest for "admin_level" of canadian cities, because i noticed 
>difference between the official Canadian recommendation on Openstreetmap wiki 
>(http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Admin_level#10_admin_level_values_for_specific_countries)
> witch is suggesting LEVEL 8 ... whereas you can check LEVEL 4 for big cities 
>in Canada on Opensstreetmap (Quebec City as instance...)
>
>So ... do we adjust our admin_level according to the canadian section of 
>openstreetmap's wiki?
>Or do you suggest to keep on tracks on LEVEL 8 usage... and why?
>
>-- 
>Bruno Remy
>
>___
>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] Re : Images satellite Bing Montréal et Québec

[Pierre Béland]

Effectivement,

comme je le disais dans le message précédent, en anglais, j'ai découvert hier 
de nouvelles images pour pratiquement toute la vallée du Richelieu, Bromont et 
Sherbrooke.


Ce sont des images de très bonne qualité.  Quel plaisir de pouvoir tracer  à 
partir de ces images. J'ai ajouté plusieurs traces récemment dans la vallée du 
Haut-Richelieu que je peux maintenant mieux aligner à l'aide de l'Imagerie 
Google.

 
Pierre 



>
> De : Bruno Remy 
>À : talk-ca@openstreetmap.org 
>Envoyé le : Jeudi 14 juin 2012 14h22
>Objet : Re: [Talk-ca] Images satellite Bing Montréal et Québec
> 
>
>Openstreetmap a annoncé sur son tweeter il y a quelques jour, la publication 
>de nouvelles cartes détaillées de BING dans certaines regions du canada je 
>n'ai pas vu de différence à Québec mais peut-être que St-hilaire n'est plus la 
>seule exception hors de ces deux grandes villes ;-)
>
>
>
>Le 7 juin 2012 09:23, Harald Kliems  a écrit :
>
>Just to add to this:
>>in the Montreal area the alignment of the Bing imagery in my
>>experience is very good. It is nonetheless a good idea to always also
>>download the GPS tracks and make sure the images match those (and the
>>Canvec import data).
>>
>>Harald (who has done a lot of aerial imagery-supported mapping in the
>>Montreal area)
>>
>>2012/6/6 Pierre Béland :
>>
>>> Pour ceux intéressés à cartographier dans la région de Montréal et de
>>> Québec, notez que l'imagerie Bing est très détaillée à Montréal et Québec.
>>> À Montréal, cette couverture s'étend sur une partie de la rive-sud et de la
>>> rive nord. Ne pas oublier d'indiquer source=Bing si vous utilisez ces
>>> images.
>>>
>>> Pour obtenir les images de haute résolution, il faut zoomer en détail. Puis
>>> soudainement, les images de très basse résolution sont remplacées par les
>>> images de meilleure qualité. Curieusement, la région du mont St-Hilaire est
>>> aussi couverte.
>>>
>>> Es-ce que quelqu'un connait l'étendue de ces images de haute résolution et
>>> les plans de Microsoft à cet égard ?
>>>
>>> Pierre
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Talk-ca mailing list
>>> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
>>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>--
>>Please use encrypted communication whenever possible!
>>Key-ID: 0x199DC50F
>>
>>___
>>Talk-ca mailing list
>>Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
>>http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>>
>
>
>-- 
>Bruno Remy
>
>___
>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] Re : admin_level of canadian cities

[Bruno Remy]

I totaly agree with you ! This is CLEAR and completed with several exemple.
And level 8 seems dedicaced to a PROVINCE (Ontario , British Colombia...ans
so on) but NOT for cities (like Quebec city)
So defibitively i suggest:
A polygone with adminlevel=4 for PROVINCE of Quebec
A SINGLE NODE widh adminkevel=8 for CITY of Quebec

Right?

Bruno Remy
Le 2012-06-14 14:35, "Pierre Béland"  a écrit :

> Bruno,
>
> In the wiki page it is clearly indicated to use admin_level=8 for
> municipalities in Canada. Levels 9 and 10 are used for subdivisions into
> the municipality (ie. arrondissement and neighborhood / quartiers ).
>
> Pierre
>
>   --
> *De :* Bruno Remy 
> *À :* talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> *Envoyé le :* Jeudi 14 juin 2012 13h44
> *Objet :* [Talk-ca] admin_level of canadian cities
>
> hi,
>
> What do you suggest for "admin_level" of canadian cities, because i
> noticed difference between the official Canadian recommendation on
> Openstreetmap wiki (
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Admin_level#10_admin_level_values_for_specific_countries)
> witch is suggesting LEVEL 8 ... whereas you can check LEVEL 4 for big
> cities in Canada on Opensstreetmap (Quebec City as instance...)
>
> So ... do we adjust our admin_level according to the canadian section of
> openstreetmap's wiki?
> Or do you suggest to keep on tracks on LEVEL 8 usage... and why?
>
> --
> Bruno Remy
>
> ___
> 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] Re : admin_level of canadian cities

[Pierre Béland]

We should not confuse province and municipality levels.

Quebec city has admin_level=8. See  node description 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/1781476959


Quebec province has admin_level=4. See  Administrative boundary 
relationhttp://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/61549 


Pierre 



>
> De : Andrew Lester 
>À : 'Bruno Remy' ; talk-ca@openstreetmap.org 
>Envoyé le : Jeudi 14 juin 2012 14h13
>Objet : Re: [Talk-ca] admin_level of canadian cities
> 
>
>As far as I can tell, the reason Quebec City is tagged as admin_level=4 is 
>because it’s the capital of the province. As per your linked wiki page, 
>provinces are admin_level=4. For any old non-capital city, they should be 
>tagged admin_level=8. Keep in mind that admin_level=* is primarily intended 
>for use on boundary ways and relations, not the place=* node. The usage of 
>admin_level=*and capital=* on city nodes is part of a proposed feature 
>covering capitals 
>(http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/capital). Contrary to 
>what that proposal outlines, the common usage according to Taginfo 
>(http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/capital#values) seems to be that 
>capitals are tagged as capital=[admin level number] (ie. Quebec City would be 
>tagged capital=4).
> 
>Andrew Lester
>Victoria, BC
> 
>From:Bruno Remy [mailto:bremy.qc...@gmail.com] 
>Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2012 10:44 AM
>To: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
>Subject: [Talk-ca] admin_level of canadian cities
> 
>hi,
>
>What do you suggest for "admin_level" of canadian cities, because i noticed 
>difference between the official Canadian recommendation on Openstreetmap wiki 
>(http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Admin_level#10_admin_level_values_for_specific_countries)
> witch is suggesting LEVEL 8 ... whereas you can check LEVEL 4 for big cities 
>in Canada on Opensstreetmap (Quebec City as instance...)
>
>So ... do we adjust our admin_level according to the canadian section of 
>openstreetmap's wiki?
>Or do you suggest to keep on tracks on LEVEL 8 usage... and why?
>
>-- 
>Bruno Remy
>___
>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] Re : Re : admin_level of canadian cities

[Pierre Béland]

Bruno, what you  present correspond to the present situation like I indicated 
in my last mail that came at same time as yours.
We could also have an administrative boundary relation =8 to describe Quebec 
city limits. This is very helpfull to search into cities. I have done that for 
Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu using data from Statistic Canada. We should obtain 
better information from government of Quebec in the next year.


For example, with Nominatim, I can search rue Jacques-Cartier, 
Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu.

But if I search Rue Grande Allee, Quebec, I cannot find it. Only a street in 
Montreal is reported.

 
Pierre 



>
> De : Bruno Remy 
>À : Pierre Béland ; "talk-ca@openstreetmap.org" 
> 
>Envoyé le : Jeudi 14 juin 2012 14h47
>Objet : Re: [Talk-ca] Re : admin_level of canadian cities
> 
>
>I totaly agree with you ! This is CLEAR and completed with several exemple. 
>And level 8 seems dedicaced to a PROVINCE (Ontario , British Colombia...ans so 
>on) but NOT for cities (like Quebec city) 
>So defibitively i suggest:
>A polygone with adminlevel=4 for PROVINCE of Quebec
>A SINGLE NODE widh adminkevel=8 for CITY of Quebec
>Right?
>Bruno Remy
>Le 2012-06-14 14:35, "Pierre Béland"  a écrit :
>
>Bruno, 
>>
>>
>>
>>In the wiki page it is clearly indicated to use admin_level=8 for 
>>municipalities in Canada. Levels 9 and 10 are used for subdivisions into the 
>>municipality (ie. arrondissement and neighborhood / quartiers ).
>> 
>>Pierre 
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> De : Bruno Remy 
>>>À : talk-ca@openstreetmap.org 
>>>Envoyé le : Jeudi 14 juin 2012 13h44
>>>Objet : [Talk-ca] admin_level of canadian cities
>>> 
>>>
>>>hi,
>>>
>>>What do you suggest for "admin_level" of canadian cities, because i noticed 
>>>difference between the official Canadian recommendation on Openstreetmap 
>>>wiki 
>>>(http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Admin_level#10_admin_level_values_for_specific_countries)
>>> witch is suggesting LEVEL 8 ... whereas you can check LEVEL 4 for big 
>>>cities in Canada on Opensstreetmap (Quebec City as instance...)
>>>
>>>So ... do we adjust our admin_level according to the canadian section of 
>>>openstreetmap's wiki?
>>>Or do you suggest to keep on tracks on LEVEL 8 usage... and why?
>>>
>>>-- 
>>>Bruno Remy
>>>
>>>___
>>>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] admin_level of canadian cities

[Andrew Lester]

Ahh, you’re absolutely correct. I hadn’t noticed that node. The one I was 
looking at is http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/30915641, which isn’t 
part of any relations. One of these two “Quebec” nodes should probably be 
removed and the remaining one added to the provincial relation.

 

Andrew

 

From: Pierre Béland [mailto:infosbelas-...@yahoo.fr] 
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2012 11:52 AM
To: Andrew Lester; 'Bruno Remy'; talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re : [Talk-ca] admin_level of canadian cities

 

We should not confuse province and municipality levels.

 

Quebec city has admin_level=8. See  node description 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/1781476959


Quebec province has admin_level=4. See  Administrative boundary 
relationhttp://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/61549 

 

Pierre 

  _  

De : Andrew Lester 
À : 'Bruno Remy' ; talk-ca@openstreetmap.org 
Envoyé le : Jeudi 14 juin 2012 14h13
Objet : Re: [Talk-ca] admin_level of canadian cities





As far as I can tell, the reason Quebec City is tagged as admin_level=4 is 
because it’s the capital of the province. As per your linked wiki page, 
provinces are admin_level=4. For any old non-capital city, they should be 
tagged admin_level=8. Keep in mind that admin_level=* is primarily intended for 
use on boundary ways and relations, not the place=* node. The usage of 
admin_level=*and capital=* on city nodes is part of a proposed feature covering 
capitals (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/capital). 
Contrary to what that proposal outlines, the common usage according to Taginfo 
(http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/capital#values) seems to be that 
capitals are tagged as capital=[admin level number] (ie. Quebec City would be 
tagged capital=4).

 

Andrew Lester

Victoria, BC

 

From: Bruno Remy [mailto:bremy.qc...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2012 10:44 AM
To: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
Subject: [Talk-ca] admin_level of canadian cities

 

hi,

What do you suggest for "admin_level" of canadian cities, because i noticed 
difference between the official Canadian recommendation on Openstreetmap wiki 
(http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Admin_level#10_admin_level_values_for_specific_countries)
 witch is suggesting LEVEL 8 ... whereas you can check LEVEL 4 for big cities 
in Canada on Opensstreetmap (Quebec City as instance...)

So ... do we adjust our admin_level according to the canadian section of 
openstreetmap's wiki?
Or do you suggest to keep on tracks on LEVEL 8 usage... and why?

-- 
Bruno Remy


___
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] Re : admin_level of canadian cities

[Pierre Béland]

I suggest to keep node 30915641 where content is more accurate.  Tag 
state_capital is ok. But the tag admin_level=4 should be removed. And I dont 
know if capital=yes adds anything.


We should avoid to create duplicates of the tag admin_level and not confuse 
about where to place admin_level tags. 


Admin_level=4 refers to the province. It is placed in the boundary relation for 
Quebec province (as it is presenly).


Admin_level=8 refers to the municipality. It is presently in the node for 
Quebec city. wich is ok. Butwhen a boundary relation will be created for Quebec 
city, this admin_level tag will be moved to that boundary relation. 


Boundary relation :the node for Quebec city, 30915641, should be added to 
boundary relation for Quebec province with role .admin_centre
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/61549.



Pierre 

 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/30915641 

addr:country = CA 
admin_level = 4 
capital = yes 
is_in = Québec, Canada 
is_in:continent = Amérique du Nord 
is_in:country = Canada 
is_in:state = Québec 
is_in:state_code = QC 
name = Québec 
name:ar = كويبك سيتي 
name:en = Quebec 
name:eu = Québec 
name:fr = Québec 
name:ru = Квебек 
place = city 
population = 8047000 
state_capital = yes 
superficy = 1667441 

http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/1781476959
admin_level = 8 
capital = 8 
is_in = Canada, Québec, Capitale-Nationale 
name = Québec 
name:en = Quebec 
place = town 
population = 8047000 




>
> De : Andrew Lester 
>À : 'Pierre Béland' ; 'Bruno Remy' 
>; talk-ca@openstreetmap.org 
>Envoyé le : Jeudi 14 juin 2012 14h59
>Objet : RE: [Talk-ca] admin_level of canadian cities
> 
>
>Ahh, you’re absolutely correct. I hadn’t noticed that node. The one I was 
>looking at is http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/30915641, which isn’t 
>part of any relations. One of these two “Quebec” nodes should probably be 
>removed and the remaining one added to the provincial relation.
> 
>Andrew
> 
>From:Pierre Béland [mailto:infosbelas-...@yahoo.fr] 
>Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2012 11:52 AM
>To: Andrew Lester; 'Bruno Remy'; talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
>Subject: Re : [Talk-ca] admin_level of canadian cities
> 
>We should not confuse province and municipality levels.
> 
>Quebec city has admin_level=8. See  node description 
>http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/1781476959
>
>Quebec province has admin_level=4. See  Administrative boundary 
>relationhttp://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/61549 
> 
>Pierre 
>
>
>
>De :Andrew Lester 
>À : 'Bruno Remy' ; talk-ca@openstreetmap.org 
>Envoyé le : Jeudi 14 juin 2012 14h13
>Objet : Re: [Talk-ca] admin_level of canadian cities
>
>
>
>As far as I can tell, the reason Quebec City is tagged as admin_level=4 is 
>because it’s the capital of the province. As per your linked wiki page, 
>provinces are admin_level=4. For any old non-capital city, they should be 
>tagged admin_level=8. Keep in mind that admin_level=* is primarily intended 
>for use on boundary ways and relations, not the place=* node. The usage of 
>admin_level=*and capital=* on city nodes is part of a proposed feature 
>covering capitals 
>(http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/capital). Contrary to 
>what that proposal outlines, the common usage according to Taginfo 
>(http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/capital#values) seems to be that 
>capitals are tagged as capital=[admin level number] (ie. Quebec City would be 
>tagged capital=4).
> 
>Andrew Lester
>Victoria, BC
> 
>From:Bruno Remy [mailto:bremy.qc...@gmail.com] 
>Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2012 10:44 AM
>To: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
>Subject: [Talk-ca] admin_level of canadian cities
> 
>hi,
>
>What do you suggest for "admin_level" of canadian cities, because i noticed 
>difference between the official Canadian recommendation on Openstreetmap wiki 
>(http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Admin_level#10_admin_level_values_for_specific_countries)
> witch is suggesting LEVEL 8 ... whereas you can check LEVEL 4 for big cities 
>in Canada on Opensstreetmap (Quebec City as instance...)
>
>So ... do we adjust our admin_level according to the canadian section of 
>openstreetmap's wiki?
>Or do you suggest to keep on tracks on LEVEL 8 usage... and why?
>
>-- 
>Bruno Remy
>
>___
>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] Re : Images satellite Bing Montréal et Québec

[Jonathan Crowe]

Je pourrai ajouter qu'il y a aussi des nouvelles images dans
l'Outaouais : non seulement à Gatineau, mais aussi dans le MRC de
Pontiac (Shawville, Campbell's-Bay), où il n'y avait pas eu des images
à haute resolution avant celles-ci.

La correspondence entre ces images et la carte crée par mes traces GPS
est très proche. Ou, plus précisement, était très proche, parce que
j'ai déjà commencé à refaire la carte ici avec plus de détail.


2012/6/14 Pierre Béland :
> Effectivement,
>
> comme je le disais dans le message précédent, en anglais, j'ai découvert
> hier de nouvelles images pour pratiquement toute la vallée du Richelieu,
> Bromont et Sherbrooke.
>
>
> Ce sont des images de très bonne qualité.  Quel plaisir de pouvoir tracer  à
> partir de ces images. J'ai ajouté plusieurs traces récemment dans la vallée
> du Haut-Richelieu que je peux maintenant mieux aligner à l'aide de
> l'Imagerie Google.
>
> Pierre
>
> 
> De : Bruno Remy 
> À : talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> Envoyé le : Jeudi 14 juin 2012 14h22
> Objet : Re: [Talk-ca] Images satellite Bing Montréal et Québec
>
> Openstreetmap a annoncé sur son tweeter il y a quelques jour, la publication
> de nouvelles cartes détaillées de BING dans certaines regions du canada
> je n'ai pas vu de différence à Québec mais peut-être que St-hilaire n'est
> plus la seule exception hors de ces deux grandes villes ;-)
>
>
> Le 7 juin 2012 09:23, Harald Kliems  a écrit :
>
> Just to add to this:
> in the Montreal area the alignment of the Bing imagery in my
> experience is very good. It is nonetheless a good idea to always also
> download the GPS tracks and make sure the images match those (and the
> Canvec import data).
>
> Harald (who has done a lot of aerial imagery-supported mapping in the
> Montreal area)
>
> 2012/6/6 Pierre Béland :
>> Pour ceux intéressés à cartographier dans la région de Montréal et de
>> Québec, notez que l'imagerie Bing est très détaillée à Montréal et Québec.
>> À Montréal, cette couverture s'étend sur une partie de la rive-sud et de
>> la
>> rive nord. Ne pas oublier d'indiquer source=Bing si vous utilisez ces
>> images.
>>
>> Pour obtenir les images de haute résolution, il faut zoomer en détail.
>> Puis
>> soudainement, les images de très basse résolution sont remplacées par les
>> images de meilleure qualité. Curieusement, la région du mont St-Hilaire
>> est
>> aussi couverte.
>>
>> Es-ce que quelqu'un connait l'étendue de ces images de haute résolution et
>> les plans de Microsoft à cet égard ?
>>
>> Pierre
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-ca mailing list
>> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Please use encrypted communication whenever possible!
> Key-ID: 0x199DC50F
>
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>
>
>
>
> --
> Bruno Remy
>
> ___
> 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
>



-- 
Jonathan Crowe
http://www.jonathancrowe.net

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

Re: [Talk-ca] Re : Images satellite Bing Montréal et Québec

[Bruno Remy]

Excellent !

Bruno Remy
Le 2012-06-14 15:50, "Jonathan Crowe"  a écrit :

> Je pourrai ajouter qu'il y a aussi des nouvelles images dans
> l'Outaouais : non seulement à Gatineau, mais aussi dans le MRC de
> Pontiac (Shawville, Campbell's-Bay), où il n'y avait pas eu des images
> à haute resolution avant celles-ci.
>
> La correspondence entre ces images et la carte crée par mes traces GPS
> est très proche. Ou, plus précisement, était très proche, parce que
> j'ai déjà commencé à refaire la carte ici avec plus de détail.
>
>
> 2012/6/14 Pierre Béland :
> > Effectivement,
> >
> > comme je le disais dans le message précédent, en anglais, j'ai découvert
> > hier de nouvelles images pour pratiquement toute la vallée du Richelieu,
> > Bromont et Sherbrooke.
> >
> >
> > Ce sont des images de très bonne qualité.  Quel plaisir de pouvoir
> tracer  à
> > partir de ces images. J'ai ajouté plusieurs traces récemment dans la
> vallée
> > du Haut-Richelieu que je peux maintenant mieux aligner à l'aide de
> > l'Imagerie Google.
> >
> > Pierre
> >
> > 
> > De : Bruno Remy 
> > À : talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> > Envoyé le : Jeudi 14 juin 2012 14h22
> > Objet : Re: [Talk-ca] Images satellite Bing Montréal et Québec
> >
> > Openstreetmap a annoncé sur son tweeter il y a quelques jour, la
> publication
> > de nouvelles cartes détaillées de BING dans certaines regions du
> canada
> > je n'ai pas vu de différence à Québec mais peut-être que St-hilaire n'est
> > plus la seule exception hors de ces deux grandes villes ;-)
> >
> >
> > Le 7 juin 2012 09:23, Harald Kliems  a écrit :
> >
> > Just to add to this:
> > in the Montreal area the alignment of the Bing imagery in my
> > experience is very good. It is nonetheless a good idea to always also
> > download the GPS tracks and make sure the images match those (and the
> > Canvec import data).
> >
> > Harald (who has done a lot of aerial imagery-supported mapping in the
> > Montreal area)
> >
> > 2012/6/6 Pierre Béland :
> >> Pour ceux intéressés à cartographier dans la région de Montréal et de
> >> Québec, notez que l'imagerie Bing est très détaillée à Montréal et
> Québec.
> >> À Montréal, cette couverture s'étend sur une partie de la rive-sud et de
> >> la
> >> rive nord. Ne pas oublier d'indiquer source=Bing si vous utilisez ces
> >> images.
> >>
> >> Pour obtenir les images de haute résolution, il faut zoomer en détail.
> >> Puis
> >> soudainement, les images de très basse résolution sont remplacées par
> les
> >> images de meilleure qualité. Curieusement, la région du mont St-Hilaire
> >> est
> >> aussi couverte.
> >>
> >> Es-ce que quelqu'un connait l'étendue de ces images de haute résolution
> et
> >> les plans de Microsoft à cet égard ?
> >>
> >> Pierre
> >>
> >> ___
> >> Talk-ca mailing list
> >> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> >> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Please use encrypted communication whenever possible!
> > Key-ID: 0x199DC50F
> >
> > ___
> > Talk-ca mailing list
> > Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Bruno Remy
> >
> > ___
> > 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
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Jonathan Crowe
> http://www.jonathancrowe.net
>
> ___
> 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] BING Maps high resolution in Canada

[Adam Dunn]

Don't forget that you can check age at:
http://mvexel.dev.openstreetmap.org/bing/
and resolution at:
http://ant.dev.openstreetmap.org/bingimageanalyzer/

Hurray! They finally have imagery of Yellowknife available. Well, the
eastern half of Yellowknife at least - not my house. How is it that
people in the east always get things first?

Adam

On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 12:27 PM, Bruno Remy  wrote:
> Openstreetmap recently annonced on his tweeter , release of brand new high
> definition satelite vues of BING in Canada.
> So... hope it 'll help you were you're mapping ;-)
>
> --
> Bruno Remy
>
> ___
> 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] Re : admin_level of canadian cities

[Bruno Remy]

You're right : i will do so.

Bruno Remy
Le 2012-06-14 15:49, "Pierre Béland"  a écrit :

> I suggest to keep node 30915641 where content is more accurate.  Tag
> state_capital is ok. But the tag admin_level=4 should be removed. And I
> dont know if capital=yes adds anything.
>
> We should avoid to create duplicates of the tag admin_level and not
> confuse about where to place admin_level tags.
>
> Admin_level=4 refers to the province. It is placed in the boundary
> relation for Quebec province (as it is presenly).
>
>
> Admin_level=8 refers to the municipality. It is presently in the node for
> Quebec city. wich is ok. But when a boundary relation will be created for
> Quebec city, this admin_level tag will be moved to that boundary relation.
>
> Boundary relation :the node for Quebec city, 30915641, should be added to
> boundary relation for Quebec province with role .admin_centre
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/61549.
>
>
>
> Pierre
>
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/30915641
>  
> addr:country = CA  admin_level = 4  capital = yes  
> is_in= Québec, 
> Canada  is_in:continent
> = Amérique du Nord  is_in:country = Canada  is_in:state = Québec  
> is_in:state_code
> = QC  name  =
> Québec  name:ar = كويبك سيتي  name:en = Quebec  name:eu = Québec  name:fr
> = Québec  name:ru = Квебек  
> place=
> city 
> population = 
> 8047000  state_capital
> = yes  superficy = 1667441
>
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/1781476959
>  admin_level = 8  capital = 8  
> is_in= Canada, 
> Québec, Capitale-Nationale
> name  = Québec  
> name:en
> = Quebec  place=
> town 
> population = 
> 8047000
>
>
>   --
> *De :* Andrew Lester 
> *À :* 'Pierre Béland' ; 'Bruno Remy' <
> bremy.qc...@gmail.com>; talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> *Envoyé le :* Jeudi 14 juin 2012 14h59
> *Objet :* RE: [Talk-ca] admin_level of canadian cities
>
> Ahh, you’re absolutely correct. I hadn’t noticed that node. The one I was
> looking at is http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/30915641, which
> isn’t part of any relations. One of these two “Quebec” nodes should
> probably be removed and the remaining one added to the provincial relation.
>
> Andrew
>
> *From:* Pierre Béland [mailto:infosbelas-...@yahoo.fr]
> *Sent:* Thursday, June 14, 2012 11:52 AM
> *To:* Andrew Lester; 'Bruno Remy'; talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> *Subject:* Re : [Talk-ca] admin_level of canadian cities
>
> We should not confuse province and municipality levels.
>
> Quebec city has admin_level=8. See  node description
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/1781476959
>
> Quebec province has admin_level=4. See  Administrative boundary
> relationhttp://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/61549
>
> *Pierre *
> --
> *De :* Andrew Lester 
> *À :* 'Bruno Remy' ; talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> *Envoyé le :* Jeudi 14 juin 2012 14h13
> *Objet :* Re: [Talk-ca] admin_level of canadian cities
>
>
> As far as I can tell, the reason Quebec City is tagged as admin_level=4 is
> because it’s the capital of the province. As per your linked wiki page,
> provinces are admin_level=4. For any old non-capital city, they should be
> tagged admin_level=8. Keep in mind that admin_level=* is primarily intended
> for use on boundary ways and relations, not the place=* node. The usage of
> admin_level=*and capital=* on city nodes is part of a proposed feature
> covering capitals (
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/capital). Contrary
> to what that proposal outlines, the common usage according to Taginfo (
> http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/capital#values) seems to be that
> capitals are tagged as capital=[admin level number] (ie. Quebec City would
> be tagged capital=4).
>
> Andrew Lester
> Victoria, BC
>
> *From:* Bruno Remy [mailto:bremy.qc...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, June 14, 2012 10:44 AM
> *To:* talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> *Subject:* [Talk-ca] admin_level of canadian cities
>
> hi,
>
> What do you suggest for "admin_level" of canadian cities, because i
> noticed difference between the official Canadian recommendation on
> Openstreetmap wiki (
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Admin_level#10_admin_level_values_for_specific_countries)
> witch is suggesting LEVEL 8 ... whereas you can check