[Talk-ca] Question on CANVEC
Hey all, I have a quick question on data that has been imported from CANVEC. I have been doing some work on the North-West side of Thunder Bay in Ontario. Part of that has been attempting to revamp the land use designations there. At the moment, the use has been entered via CANVEC import, but a review comparing that data to the actual land underneath from the Satellite shows fairly large variances. As well, the Wood polygon itself is oddly shaped, with squared lines denoting where it two CANVEC products were imported side by side. Large multi-polygon areas like these are impossible to edit in ID and still difficult in JOSM. So my question is this - if I am editing the area, what is the perception on deleting the main Wood polygon altogether and re-creating it? My intent would be to increase the accuracy of the map in the area based on the satellite data provided by Bing and this would be easier if the land use were cleared and re-built. I would leave the features that CANVEC imported - only the land use would be re-constructed in that case. The other components would simply be moved and edited as needed. Thanks, Adam ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Question on CANVEC
Just delete and recreate. There have been several discussions on this list about the data quality of the landuse data and if it should've been imported in the first place (no data vs. bad data). Working with gigantic multipolygons is indeed a pain and I don't think there is any value to preserving the import data. Just my two cents, Harald. On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 8:36 AM, Adam Martin s.adam.mar...@gmail.com wrote: Hey all, I have a quick question on data that has been imported from CANVEC. I have been doing some work on the North-West side of Thunder Bay in Ontario. Part of that has been attempting to revamp the land use designations there. At the moment, the use has been entered via CANVEC import, but a review comparing that data to the actual land underneath from the Satellite shows fairly large variances. As well, the Wood polygon itself is oddly shaped, with squared lines denoting where it two CANVEC products were imported side by side. Large multi-polygon areas like these are impossible to edit in ID and still difficult in JOSM. So my question is this - if I am editing the area, what is the perception on deleting the main Wood polygon altogether and re-creating it? My intent would be to increase the accuracy of the map in the area based on the satellite data provided by Bing and this would be easier if the land use were cleared and re-built. I would leave the features that CANVEC imported - only the land use would be re-constructed in that case. The other components would simply be moved and edited as needed. Thanks, Adam ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca -- Please use encrypted communication whenever possible! Key-ID: 0x34cb93972f186565 ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Question on CANVEC
I agree, that the large polygons, are a pain. I would second the idea of deleting and recreating the wooded areas from imagery. I don't think I would go so far to say all of the canvec imported data is bad. i.e. Lakes, rivers, roads, address data, train tracks, etc. I must from the camp where the goal is to improve the quality of the map even if it is from an incremental point. (i.e. no data to some data) or I guess (no data to PIA data? :-) Andrew aka CanvecImports. aka I guess, one of the offenders :-) On Tue, 2014-07-22 at 09:25 -0500, Harald Kliems wrote: Just delete and recreate. There have been several discussions on this list about the data quality of the landuse data and if it should've been imported in the first place (no data vs. bad data). Working with gigantic multipolygons is indeed a pain and I don't think there is any value to preserving the import data. Just my two cents, Harald. On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 8:36 AM, Adam Martin s.adam.mar...@gmail.com wrote: Hey all, I have a quick question on data that has been imported from CANVEC. I have been doing some work on the North-West side of Thunder Bay in Ontario. Part of that has been attempting to revamp the land use designations there. At the moment, the use has been entered via CANVEC import, but a review comparing that data to the actual land underneath from the Satellite shows fairly large variances. As well, the Wood polygon itself is oddly shaped, with squared lines denoting where it two CANVEC products were imported side by side. Large multi-polygon areas like these are impossible to edit in ID and still difficult in JOSM. So my question is this - if I am editing the area, what is the perception on deleting the main Wood polygon altogether and re-creating it? My intent would be to increase the accuracy of the map in the area based on the satellite data provided by Bing and this would be easier if the land use were cleared and re-built. I would leave the features that CANVEC imported - only the land use would be re-constructed in that case. The other components would simply be moved and edited as needed. Thanks, Adam ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca -- Please use encrypted communication whenever possible! Key-ID: 0x34cb93972f186565 ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Question on CANVEC
Just to clarify, I was only talking specifically about the landuse data. Much of Canvec is great! Harald. On Jul 22, 2014 10:21 AM, Andrew andrew.alli...@teksavvy.com wrote: I agree, that the large polygons, are a pain. I would second the idea of deleting and recreating the wooded areas from imagery. I don't think I would go so far to say all of the canvec imported data is bad. i.e. Lakes, rivers, roads, address data, train tracks, etc. I must from the camp where the goal is to improve the quality of the map even if it is from an incremental point. (i.e. no data to some data) or I guess (no data to PIA data? :-) Andrew aka CanvecImports. aka I guess, one of the offenders :-) On Tue, 2014-07-22 at 09:25 -0500, Harald Kliems wrote: Just delete and recreate. There have been several discussions on this list about the data quality of the landuse data and if it should've been imported in the first place (no data vs. bad data). Working with gigantic multipolygons is indeed a pain and I don't think there is any value to preserving the import data. Just my two cents, Harald. On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 8:36 AM, Adam Martin s.adam.mar...@gmail.com wrote: Hey all, I have a quick question on data that has been imported from CANVEC. I have been doing some work on the North-West side of Thunder Bay in Ontario. Part of that has been attempting to revamp the land use designations there. At the moment, the use has been entered via CANVEC import, but a review comparing that data to the actual land underneath from the Satellite shows fairly large variances. As well, the Wood polygon itself is oddly shaped, with squared lines denoting where it two CANVEC products were imported side by side. Large multi-polygon areas like these are impossible to edit in ID and still difficult in JOSM. So my question is this - if I am editing the area, what is the perception on deleting the main Wood polygon altogether and re-creating it? My intent would be to increase the accuracy of the map in the area based on the satellite data provided by Bing and this would be easier if the land use were cleared and re-built. I would leave the features that CANVEC imported - only the land use would be re-constructed in that case. The other components would simply be moved and edited as needed. Thanks, Adam ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca -- Please use encrypted communication whenever possible! Key-ID: 0x34cb93972f186565 ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Question on CANVEC
I agree, Harald. There are lots of things that the CANVEC adds that's perfectly fine, if somewhat off position. Easier to edit those into position than to try to create them whole-cloth. On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 2:27 PM, Harald Kliems kli...@gmail.com wrote: Just to clarify, I was only talking specifically about the landuse data. Much of Canvec is great! Harald. On Jul 22, 2014 10:21 AM, Andrew andrew.alli...@teksavvy.com wrote: I agree, that the large polygons, are a pain. I would second the idea of deleting and recreating the wooded areas from imagery. I don't think I would go so far to say all of the canvec imported data is bad. i.e. Lakes, rivers, roads, address data, train tracks, etc. I must from the camp where the goal is to improve the quality of the map even if it is from an incremental point. (i.e. no data to some data) or I guess (no data to PIA data? :-) Andrew aka CanvecImports. aka I guess, one of the offenders :-) On Tue, 2014-07-22 at 09:25 -0500, Harald Kliems wrote: Just delete and recreate. There have been several discussions on this list about the data quality of the landuse data and if it should've been imported in the first place (no data vs. bad data). Working with gigantic multipolygons is indeed a pain and I don't think there is any value to preserving the import data. Just my two cents, Harald. On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 8:36 AM, Adam Martin s.adam.mar...@gmail.com wrote: Hey all, I have a quick question on data that has been imported from CANVEC. I have been doing some work on the North-West side of Thunder Bay in Ontario. Part of that has been attempting to revamp the land use designations there. At the moment, the use has been entered via CANVEC import, but a review comparing that data to the actual land underneath from the Satellite shows fairly large variances. As well, the Wood polygon itself is oddly shaped, with squared lines denoting where it two CANVEC products were imported side by side. Large multi-polygon areas like these are impossible to edit in ID and still difficult in JOSM. So my question is this - if I am editing the area, what is the perception on deleting the main Wood polygon altogether and re-creating it? My intent would be to increase the accuracy of the map in the area based on the satellite data provided by Bing and this would be easier if the land use were cleared and re-built. I would leave the features that CANVEC imported - only the land use would be re-constructed in that case. The other components would simply be moved and edited as needed. Thanks, Adam ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca -- Please use encrypted communication whenever possible! Key-ID: 0x34cb93972f186565 ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
[Talk-ca] need help: how to made orthographic projections of global map from QGIS
Hi all, I try to produce series (360 maps) of global round map from QGIS. The global round maps will be centre at equator and longitude of one degree increment (from 0 to 360 degree) for each round map. It will be appreciated if someone can give detail instructions on how to generate the above 360 orthographic projections of global maps from QGIS. Regards, Vincent ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
