Re: [Talk-ca] Toronto OpenStreetMap Meet and Greet
We've confirmed the date and time, and the special guest, for the Toronto meet and greet. It will be next Saturday, 05 Jan 2013, from 3pm. http://www.meetup.com/OpenStreetMap-Toronto/ Join the meetup, or email me off list for details. ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
[Talk-ca] Deleting non-visible Administrative Boundaries (or The Great Wall of China)
Hi, In this post of Talk-US, Frederik suggests NOT mapping administrative boundaries that are not visible on ground (fences, toll, etc...) http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2012-December/010026.html Don't you think that the notion of virtual or not is absolutly not applicable on administrative boundaries?! Since humanity exists, administrative boundaries determines the link beetween (population) Gouvernements and Geography. Look at our history: except The Great Wall of China, most of old and big Empires settled their boundaries without marks (fences). Look at most administrative boundaries in Sahel (Mali, Mauritanie) or in the the United States (Nevada, Arizona): Long strait virtual lines into Desert Land, without fences neither natural limits (rivers...). And what about limits beetween USA and Canada in the Oceans and See? Do we delete those boundaries because they're not visible? So ... deleting (or nor drawing) administrative boundaries makes no sence in this way! Dont'you mind? A Map has to be a citizen information of administrative and geographical data (and this includes administrative boundaries) and not 2D version of what OpenStreetMap offers in 3D version With political, historical and administrative point-of-view a map should not apply the principe of What You See Is What You Get. If this were the case, only satelites will remain the only single base material of GIS, and map will die! Isn't it? I don't think so but i wonder the absurdity of such arguments in favor of WYSIWYG in mapping. What do you think of that? Bruno Remy ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Deleting non-visible Administrative Boundaries (or The Great Wall of China)
Bruno, Frederik tiens un discours idéologique sans savoir à quoi servent de telles informations. Je pourrais toujours dire que je demeure sur la rue ensoleillée, dans un village nulle part. Difficile de s'y retrouver. Les limites administratives, tout comme les noms de rues sont un élément essentiel d'une base de donnée comme OSM. Essaie de rechercher, à partir de Nominatim, un nom de rue lorsque les limites administratives de la municipalité ne sont pas tracées. Tout cela me semble bien plus utile que de tracer des clôtures parce que ça fait beau. Pierre De : Bruno Remy bremy.qc...@gmail.com À : talk-ca@openstreetmap.org talk-ca@openstreetmap.org Envoyé le : Samedi 29 décembre 2012 12h49 Objet : [Talk-ca] Deleting non-visible Administrative Boundaries (or The Great Wall of China) Hi, In this post of Talk-US, Frederik suggests NOT mapping administrative boundaries that are not visible on ground (fences, toll, etc...) http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2012-December/010026.html Don't you think that the notion of virtual or not is absolutly not applicable on administrative boundaries?! Since humanity exists, administrative boundaries determines the link beetween (population) Gouvernements and Geography. Look at our history: except The Great Wall of China, most of old and big Empires settled their boundaries without marks (fences). Look at most administrative boundaries in Sahel (Mali, Mauritanie) or in the the United States (Nevada, Arizona): Long strait virtual lines into Desert Land, without fences neither natural limits (rivers...). And what about limits beetween USA and Canada in the Oceans and See? Do we delete those boundaries because they're not visible? So ... deleting (or nor drawing) administrative boundaries makes no sence in this way! Dont'you mind? A Map has to be a citizen information of administrative and geographical data (and this includes administrative boundaries) and not 2D version of what OpenStreetMap offers in 3D version With political, historical and administrative point-of-view a map should not apply the principe of What You See Is What You Get. If this were the case, only satelites will remain the only single base material of GIS, and map will die! Isn't it? I don't think so but i wonder the absurdity of such arguments in favor of WYSIWYG in mapping. What do you think of that? 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] Deleting non-visible Administrative Boundaries (or The Great Wall of China)
I took from that message that the person was talking about not putting property lines in OSM, not about removing geopolitical boundaries. Mapping property lines is problematic for your average mapper and doing so accurately is an even bigger challenge. If I had to pick where to expend my mapping resources, I'd pick other things to map first before mapping lot lines. Oh, and the Romans built walls all over the place to define their boundaries, many of which are still in existence today (eg Hadrian's Wall). --G Sent from my iPhone. On 2012-12-29, at 12:49, Bruno Remy bremy.qc...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, In this post of Talk-US, Frederik suggests NOT mapping administrative boundaries that are not visible on ground (fences, toll, etc...) http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2012-December/010026.html Don't you think that the notion of virtual or not is absolutly not applicable on administrative boundaries?! Since humanity exists, administrative boundaries determines the link beetween (population) Gouvernements and Geography. Look at our history: except The Great Wall of China, most of old and big Empires settled their boundaries without marks (fences). Look at most administrative boundaries in Sahel (Mali, Mauritanie) or in the the United States (Nevada, Arizona): Long strait virtual lines into Desert Land, without fences neither natural limits (rivers...). And what about limits beetween USA and Canada in the Oceans and See? Do we delete those boundaries because they're not visible? So ... deleting (or nor drawing) administrative boundaries makes no sence in this way! Dont'you mind? A Map has to be a citizen information of administrative and geographical data (and this includes administrative boundaries) and not 2D version of what OpenStreetMap offers in 3D version With political, historical and administrative point-of-view a map should not apply the principe of What You See Is What You Get. If this were the case, only satelites will remain the only single base material of GIS, and map will die! Isn't it? I don't think so but i wonder the absurdity of such arguments in favor of WYSIWYG in mapping. What do you think of that? 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] Deleting non-visible Administrative Boundaries (or The Great Wall of China)
j'ai d'abord répondu à partir du compte-rendu de Bruno. En retournant à la discussion originale, je m'aperçois que c'est Frederik Ramm qui a écrit la note en question. Frederik est sur le conseil d'administration de la Fondation OSM et sur le comité de surveillance des données (DWG). Dans cette note, Frederik ne parle effectivement pas de limites administratives, mais plutôt d'imports en général. Frederik aime bien envoyer de temps en temps de tels pavés dans la mare. Mais cette fois-ci, il ne semble pas avoir prévu le rebond du cailloux! Les membres du DWG sont responsables d'assurer l'intégrité de la base OSM. Mais malheureusement, certains d'entre eux tiennent parfois un discours idéologique disant que ce n'est pas bien d'importer des données venant des gouvernements. Il y a eu une longue polémique sur la liste Talk récemment relative à l'imposition par le DWG de l'utilisation d'un deuxième compte usager pour l'import de données, sans vraiment pouvoir le justifier ni obtenir un consensus là-dessus. Espérons que les relations entre les membres du DWG et les membres OSM en général pourront cheminer dans des directions plus constructives pour notre organisation. La question à se poser, c'est dans quel but on développe les données OSM. Ce n'est sûrement pas pour simplement s'amuser à tracer les chemins que l'on a parcouru. La carte doit être complète, utile pour diverses analyses, pour l'import dans des GPS, permettre de développer divers API dont sur les téléphones multifonction. Au Canada par exemple, est-il réaliste de penser que l'on ne doit pas faire d'import des données de Canvec? Pierre De : Gordon Dewis gor...@pinetree.org À : Bruno Remy bremy.qc...@gmail.com Cc : talk-ca@openstreetmap.org talk-ca@openstreetmap.org Envoyé le : Samedi 29 décembre 2012 13h06 Objet : Re: [Talk-ca] Deleting non-visible Administrative Boundaries (or The Great Wall of China) I took from that message that the person was talking about not putting property lines in OSM, not about removing geopolitical boundaries. Mapping property lines is problematic for your average mapper and doing so accurately is an even bigger challenge. If I had to pick where to expend my mapping resources, I'd pick other things to map first before mapping lot lines. Oh, and the Romans built walls all over the place to define their boundaries, many of which are still in existence today (eg Hadrian's Wall). --G Sent from my iPhone. On 2012-12-29, at 12:49, Bruno Remy bremy.qc...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, In this post of Talk-US, Frederik suggests NOT mapping administrative boundaries that are not visible on ground (fences, toll, etc...) http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2012-December/010026.html Don't you think that the notion of virtual or not is absolutly not applicable on administrative boundaries?! Since humanity exists, administrative boundaries determines the link beetween (population) Gouvernements and Geography. Look at our history: except The Great Wall of China, most of old and big Empires settled their boundaries without marks (fences). Look at most administrative boundaries in Sahel (Mali, Mauritanie) or in the the United States (Nevada, Arizona): Long strait virtual lines into Desert Land, without fences neither natural limits (rivers...). And what about limits beetween USA and Canada in the Oceans and See? Do we delete those boundaries because they're not visible? So ... deleting (or nor drawing) administrative boundaries makes no sence in this way! Dont'you mind? A Map has to be a citizen information of administrative and geographical data (and this includes administrative boundaries) and not 2D version of what OpenStreetMap offers in 3D version With political, historical and administrative point-of-view a map should not apply the principe of What You See Is What You Get. If this were the case, only satelites will remain the only single base material of GIS, and map will die! Isn't it? I don't think so but i wonder the absurdity of such arguments in favor of WYSIWYG in mapping. What do you think of that? 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
