Re: [Talk-ca] Bringing canvec to OSM back to life

2014-11-20 Thread Moreau , Jean-Sébastien
Hi all,

I currently work for the team responsible for the ftp site hosting the osm data 
available at this address: http://ftp2.cits.rncan.gc.ca/OSM/pub/

I just want to let you know that there are no plan to delete this dataset. As 
any other releases of CanVec, it should remain on the ftp as an archive.
Although we did receive the request to update the osm version of CanVec, there 
are no resources currently allocated to do so.

Regards,

Jean-Sebastien

From: Daniel Begin [mailto:jfd...@hotmail.com]
Sent: November 15, 2014 17:34
To: 'Darren Wiebe'
Cc: 'Talk-CA OpenStreetMap'
Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Bringing canvec to OSM back to life

Well, since we do not have received any response/insurance from NRCan that the 
ftp site will keep running, I would like to have a backup location, just in 
case the official ftp site stops to provide data. I would be very sad if the 
data eventually ends up being no longer available.

However, since I used to be the NRCan contact (now retired), I wish to make 
clear that my answer is from an OSM user’s point of view, not an NRCan answer 
(official or not !-)

Best
Daniel

From: Darren Wiebe [mailto:dar...@aleph-com.net]
Sent: November-15-14 16:21
To: Daniel Begin
Cc: davis.christop...@gmail.commailto:davis.christop...@gmail.com; Talk-CA 
OpenStreetMap
Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Bringing canvec to OSM back to life

Would it be acceptable to mirror the Canvec data in the FTP site?  I'd gladly 
put up the resources to serve up the data.

Darren Wiebe


First, a short clarification – I do not know if Canvec will no longer (never 
again) be supplied in OSM format, I just know there are currently no resources 
allocated to work with the OSM community.

Second, about the Canvec conversion scripts …

-  They are owned by the crown – I would be surprised they could/would 
be released to the public;

-  They were all developed with FME – a powerful tool – but you usually 
need to pay to get the appropriate licences…

Third, concerning potential “diffs” files …

-  There are some references to diffs files in talk-ca archives (some 
were even available for few NTS through ftp site)

-  Maybe diffs files are available for Canvec? I do not know.

Forth, my main concern is more about the sustained availability of the data in 
the ftp site ☹

Best,
Daniel


From: Chris Davis 
[mailto:davis.christop...@gmail.commailto:davis.christop...@gmail.com]
Sent: November-15-14 01:56
To: Darren Wiebe
Cc: Talk-CA OpenStreetMap
Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Bringing canvec to OSM back to life

I think it would be great to see newer CanVec data in OSM as well. BC's 
vegetation coverage from the last import in 2010 (tagged as natural:wood) 
is horribly patchy and quite ugly in the OSM basemap and other maps.

Chris

On 14 November 2014 18:25, Darren Wiebe 
dar...@aleph-com.netmailto:dar...@aleph-com.net wrote:
I can only address point 4.  I'd love to see newer Canvec data.

Darren Wiebe

On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 7:18 PM, Andrew 
andrew.alli...@teksavvy.commailto:andrew.alli...@teksavvy.com wrote:
Hello List:

Given Daniel's reply that Canvec will no longer be supplied in OSM
format, I'm curious about:

1:  I don't know what I don't know to begin with :-)
2:  Are the scripts / programs available to do the conversion still
available?
3:  Was there ever a program written to produce a diffs file?
4:  Is there a desire to have newer Canvec data converted to OSM?

Just throwing this out there.

Andrew
aka CanvecImports


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


___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.orgmailto: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] Discussion: zones boisées

2014-11-20 Thread Ga Delap
Bonjour Bruno
 Je suis d'accord avec la logique de Frank : redécouper les polygones de
 CanVec selon les lignes de frontiéres naturelles (rivières, lacs...) et
 artificielles (routes, lignes électriques, lignes coupe-feu...etc..).
J'ai regardé tes exemples. C'est un compromis intéressant. La zone fôret est
séparée en parcelles délimitées par toute entité linéaire (route, ligne
électrique, voie ferrée, etc) ou surface (lac, bâtiment, clairière, etc). Je
n'ai vu aucun trou.
Mais il ne faut pas oublier de définir l'entité qui se trouve entre 2 parcelles
car l'absence de forêt n'est pas, en soi, une entité.
Par exemple, il y a surement un objet physique qui sépare les chemins
302348523 et 302349825. Je ne connais pas le territoire mais ce semble être un
chemin forestier qu'il faudrait définir. Et, à la limite, ce chemin linéaire
devrait être défini à l'intérieur d'une surface 2D de type clairière.
Ce qui m'améne à poser de nouveau une question de l'article qui a initié cette
discussion:
Est-ce correct d'utiliser l'absence de définition (undefined) pour représenter
les clairières? Est-ce que toutes les zones blanches de la carte OSM sont des
clairières?

Bonne journée

dega

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