Re: [Talk-ca] broken forests in eastern Canada

[Sam Dyck]

After reading through the changeset discussion, I discovered that one of my
imports in Northern Manitoba made Worst of OSM. (
http://worstofosm.tumblr.com/post/22180046353/dear-openstreetmap-isnt-it-strange-how-the).
As someone who spends a some time amount of time in some of relatively
unpopulated areas of Canada and makes an effort to check the quality of
Canvec data (which is usually pretty good), I do agree that it is
impossible to do everything to the same level of quality that we would
provide in Toronto or Timmins or even small prairie towns.

One of the things that seems to bother Nakaner and the WoO people (if I may
put words in their mouths) is that the boundaries are a bit funky in
Canvec. Forests, lakes and wetlands spill into each other, and they are
often out of alignment with the Bing imagery. In some ways this reflects a
degree of natural ambiguity: if we look at the above Hudson's bay
coastline, their is hourly variation in coastlines, and even the long term
patterns change over time. The Manitoba-Nunavut boundary is more or less
fixed by so we can't correct it, and a glance at satellite imagery shows
that the vegetation tends to be spaced off of the shoreline.

That being said sometimes there is some weird stuff happening in Canvec
data that is out of sync with what is on the ground. These should be
corrected when detected, but are rare enough that they shouldn't be a
problem. I confess I haven't always been great in following the rules when
doing imports (I think the last few years I've been fully in compliance),
and have sometimes caused problems, people on this list have generally
understanding. Perhaps we need to have a "Whats up with the forests in
Canada?" page on the wiki to explain our situation and how we've tried to
deal with it.
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] broken forests in eastern Canada

[Stewart C. Russell]

On 2016-08-30 09:18 AM, James wrote:
> He's even going to revert my work:
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/41776742
> I've forwarded this to the DWG, it's getting rediculous.

Using a dedicated account for imports is one of the few "musts". Nakaner
may be being a little officious here, but not following import rules can
result in reversion and possible user blocks.

A paper published in the last couple of years (by Anita Graser, maybe?)
showed that CanVec imports were the largest source of spurious precision
in the entire OSM database. I can see why European mappers might want to
delete them.

cheers,
 Stewart

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

Re: [Talk-ca] broken forests in eastern Canada

[Begin Daniel]

No problem,
I am not sure about the best way to deal with wooded areas. Canvec product was 
created with “layers” and merging them manually in a multipolygon is quite 
difficult.

I usually correct everything that is reasonable such as merging water in wooded 
multipolygon, transferring text nodes on corresponding areas, but not sliver 
between wetland-water-wooded areas. Which leave some errors most of the time.

Daniel



From: James [mailto:james2...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, 30 August, 2016 21:04
To: Begin Daniel
Cc: Talk-CA OpenStreetMap; john whelan; Adam Martin
Subject: RE: [Talk-ca] broken forests in eastern Canada


Sorry I'm a very sarcastic person and have trouble decerning if people are 
sarcastic or not.

Anyways what should we do with canvec tiles? Should we correct as much as 
possible leaving only 0-10 warnings(there are nodes that are tagged as land, 
but there's island names or other relevant info aka depricated tags) or should 
we just correct errors on them before uploading? The major problem in CanVec 
tiles is you have ways stacked on ways that are essentially the same way, but 
belonging to one or more multipolygons.

On Aug 30, 2016 8:55 PM, "Begin Daniel" 
> wrote:
No sarcasm at all, why?
Sorry you got that impression ☹

Daniel

From: James [mailto:james2...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, 30 August, 2016 20:50
To: Begin Daniel
Cc: Talk-CA OpenStreetMap; john whelan; Adam Martin

Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] broken forests in eastern Canada


Not sure if you are sarcastic or serious... but anyways, I'm glad the rest of 
talk-ca feels the same way(sorry for highjacking fix the forest thread even 
though it was kind of related)

On Aug 30, 2016 8:43 PM, "Begin Daniel" 
> wrote:
Wow, same ideas, same concerns, provided independently...
That is cool!
Daniel

From: Adam Martin [mailto:s.adam.mar...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, 30 August, 2016 19:15
To: john whelan

Cc: Talk-CA OpenStreetMap
Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] broken forests in eastern Canada

I've contacted him as well. Here's what I sent:

Good day, Nakaner


I am a resident of Canada and a contributor to OSM here. Looking over your 
profile, you have over 5,500 edits across the OSM project, making you a skilled 
mapper. It has come to the attention of the Canadian OSM community recently 
that you have been performing work here and we appreciate that. However, it has 
also come to our attention that much of the work you are doing involves 
reverting the CANVEC data imports that we use here without consultation with 
the local OSM group.

As you know, mapping is an involved process, especially in a country as large 
geographically as Canada. Our population is relatively low, which results in 
large expanses of land being effectively free of human involvement. Since 
mapping effort tend to centre around human activity, this means that large 
parts of Canada can go unmapped for a long time. To combat this, we have made 
use of the CANVEC data graciously made available by the Federal Government 
through the Department of Natural Resources. This information covers most of 
the country in its surveys. It is known to be somewhat inaccurate, but in the 
absence of information in a given area, it is definitely welcome.

Most of the imports that you are flagging for revision have been in place for 
years; in some cases, even before the policy for importation was in place. I'm 
sure that they didn't always meet the guidelines that are now in place within 
the larger OSM community, but the fact remains that the information that they 
represent is invaluable to the Canadian portion of the map and the mappers here.

If you wish to have that data become higher in quality, you are on the same 
side as the Canadian mapping community. We know the limitations of CANVEC and 
are working to allieviate them. Come join our OSM talk list and discuss your 
concerns with us. We are very welcoming to any points of view on the map. This 
allows all of us to come to a mutual understanding and solution to the problems 
with the imported data that you highlight.

Our list is talk-ca@openstreetmap.org

Thanks,

Adam



___
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] broken forests in eastern Canada

[James]

Sorry I'm a very sarcastic person and have trouble decerning if people are
sarcastic or not.

Anyways what should we do with canvec tiles? Should we correct as much as
possible leaving only 0-10 warnings(there are nodes that are tagged as
land, but there's island names or other relevant info aka depricated tags)
or should we just correct errors on them before uploading? The major
problem in CanVec tiles is you have ways stacked on ways that are
essentially the same way, but belonging to one or more multipolygons.

On Aug 30, 2016 8:55 PM, "Begin Daniel"  wrote:

No sarcasm at all, why?

Sorry you got that impression L



Daniel



*From:* James [mailto:james2...@gmail.com]
*Sent:* Tuesday, 30 August, 2016 20:50
*To:* Begin Daniel
*Cc:* Talk-CA OpenStreetMap; john whelan; Adam Martin

*Subject:* Re: [Talk-ca] broken forests in eastern Canada



Not sure if you are sarcastic or serious... but anyways, I'm glad the rest
of talk-ca feels the same way(sorry for highjacking fix the forest thread
even though it was kind of related)



On Aug 30, 2016 8:43 PM, "Begin Daniel"  wrote:

Wow, same ideas, same concerns, provided independently...

That is cool!

Daniel



*From:* Adam Martin [mailto:s.adam.mar...@gmail.com
]
*Sent:* Tuesday, 30 August, 2016 19:15
*To:* john whelan


*Cc:* Talk-CA OpenStreetMap
*Subject:* Re: [Talk-ca] broken forests in eastern Canada



I've contacted him as well. Here's what I sent:



Good day, Nakaner



I am a resident of Canada and a contributor to OSM here. Looking over your
profile, you have over 5,500 edits across the OSM project, making you a
skilled mapper. It has come to the attention of the Canadian OSM community
recently that you have been performing work here and we appreciate that.
However, it has also come to our attention that much of the work you are
doing involves reverting the CANVEC data imports that we use here without
consultation with the local OSM group.

As you know, mapping is an involved process, especially in a country as
large geographically as Canada. Our population is relatively low, which
results in large expanses of land being effectively free of human
involvement. Since mapping effort tend to centre around human activity,
this means that large parts of Canada can go unmapped for a long time. To
combat this, we have made use of the CANVEC data graciously made available
by the Federal Government through the Department of Natural Resources. This
information covers most of the country in its surveys. It is known to be
somewhat inaccurate, but in the absence of information in a given area, it
is definitely welcome.

Most of the imports that you are flagging for revision have been in place
for years; in some cases, even before the policy for importation was in
place. I'm sure that they didn't always meet the guidelines that are now in
place within the larger OSM community, but the fact remains that the
information that they represent is invaluable to the Canadian portion of
the map and the mappers here.

If you wish to have that data become higher in quality, you are on the same
side as the Canadian mapping community. We know the limitations of CANVEC
and are working to allieviate them. Come join our OSM talk list and discuss
your concerns with us. We are very welcoming to any points of view on the
map. This allows all of us to come to a mutual understanding and solution
to the problems with the imported data that you highlight.

Our list is talk-ca@openstreetmap.org

Thanks,

Adam






___
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] broken forests in eastern Canada

[Begin Daniel]

No sarcasm at all, why?
Sorry you got that impression ☹

Daniel

From: James [mailto:james2...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, 30 August, 2016 20:50
To: Begin Daniel
Cc: Talk-CA OpenStreetMap; john whelan; Adam Martin
Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] broken forests in eastern Canada


Not sure if you are sarcastic or serious... but anyways, I'm glad the rest of 
talk-ca feels the same way(sorry for highjacking fix the forest thread even 
though it was kind of related)

On Aug 30, 2016 8:43 PM, "Begin Daniel" 
> wrote:
Wow, same ideas, same concerns, provided independently...
That is cool!
Daniel

From: Adam Martin [mailto:s.adam.mar...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, 30 August, 2016 19:15
To: john whelan

Cc: Talk-CA OpenStreetMap
Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] broken forests in eastern Canada

I've contacted him as well. Here's what I sent:

Good day, Nakaner


I am a resident of Canada and a contributor to OSM here. Looking over your 
profile, you have over 5,500 edits across the OSM project, making you a skilled 
mapper. It has come to the attention of the Canadian OSM community recently 
that you have been performing work here and we appreciate that. However, it has 
also come to our attention that much of the work you are doing involves 
reverting the CANVEC data imports that we use here without consultation with 
the local OSM group.

As you know, mapping is an involved process, especially in a country as large 
geographically as Canada. Our population is relatively low, which results in 
large expanses of land being effectively free of human involvement. Since 
mapping effort tend to centre around human activity, this means that large 
parts of Canada can go unmapped for a long time. To combat this, we have made 
use of the CANVEC data graciously made available by the Federal Government 
through the Department of Natural Resources. This information covers most of 
the country in its surveys. It is known to be somewhat inaccurate, but in the 
absence of information in a given area, it is definitely welcome.

Most of the imports that you are flagging for revision have been in place for 
years; in some cases, even before the policy for importation was in place. I'm 
sure that they didn't always meet the guidelines that are now in place within 
the larger OSM community, but the fact remains that the information that they 
represent is invaluable to the Canadian portion of the map and the mappers here.

If you wish to have that data become higher in quality, you are on the same 
side as the Canadian mapping community. We know the limitations of CANVEC and 
are working to allieviate them. Come join our OSM talk list and discuss your 
concerns with us. We are very welcoming to any points of view on the map. This 
allows all of us to come to a mutual understanding and solution to the problems 
with the imported data that you highlight.

Our list is talk-ca@openstreetmap.org

Thanks,

Adam



___
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] broken forests in eastern Canada

[James]

Not sure if you are sarcastic or serious... but anyways, I'm glad the rest
of talk-ca feels the same way(sorry for highjacking fix the forest thread
even though it was kind of related)

On Aug 30, 2016 8:43 PM, "Begin Daniel"  wrote:

Wow, same ideas, same concerns, provided independently...

That is cool!

Daniel



*From:* Adam Martin [mailto:s.adam.mar...@gmail.com
]
*Sent:* Tuesday, 30 August, 2016 19:15
*To:* john whelan

*Cc:* Talk-CA OpenStreetMap
*Subject:* Re: [Talk-ca] broken forests in eastern Canada



I've contacted him as well. Here's what I sent:



Good day, Nakaner



I am a resident of Canada and a contributor to OSM here. Looking over your
profile, you have over 5,500 edits across the OSM project, making you a
skilled mapper. It has come to the attention of the Canadian OSM community
recently that you have been performing work here and we appreciate that.
However, it has also come to our attention that much of the work you are
doing involves reverting the CANVEC data imports that we use here without
consultation with the local OSM group.

As you know, mapping is an involved process, especially in a country as
large geographically as Canada. Our population is relatively low, which
results in large expanses of land being effectively free of human
involvement. Since mapping effort tend to centre around human activity,
this means that large parts of Canada can go unmapped for a long time. To
combat this, we have made use of the CANVEC data graciously made available
by the Federal Government through the Department of Natural Resources. This
information covers most of the country in its surveys. It is known to be
somewhat inaccurate, but in the absence of information in a given area, it
is definitely welcome.

Most of the imports that you are flagging for revision have been in place
for years; in some cases, even before the policy for importation was in
place. I'm sure that they didn't always meet the guidelines that are now in
place within the larger OSM community, but the fact remains that the
information that they represent is invaluable to the Canadian portion of
the map and the mappers here.

If you wish to have that data become higher in quality, you are on the same
side as the Canadian mapping community. We know the limitations of CANVEC
and are working to allieviate them. Come join our OSM talk list and discuss
your concerns with us. We are very welcoming to any points of view on the
map. This allows all of us to come to a mutual understanding and solution
to the problems with the imported data that you highlight.

Our list is talk-ca@openstreetmap.org

Thanks,

Adam





___
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] broken forests in eastern Canada

[Begin Daniel]

Wow, same ideas, same concerns, provided independently...
That is cool!
Daniel

From: Adam Martin [mailto:s.adam.mar...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, 30 August, 2016 19:15
To: john whelan
Cc: Talk-CA OpenStreetMap
Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] broken forests in eastern Canada

I've contacted him as well. Here's what I sent:

Good day, Nakaner


I am a resident of Canada and a contributor to OSM here. Looking over your 
profile, you have over 5,500 edits across the OSM project, making you a skilled 
mapper. It has come to the attention of the Canadian OSM community recently 
that you have been performing work here and we appreciate that. However, it has 
also come to our attention that much of the work you are doing involves 
reverting the CANVEC data imports that we use here without consultation with 
the local OSM group.

As you know, mapping is an involved process, especially in a country as large 
geographically as Canada. Our population is relatively low, which results in 
large expanses of land being effectively free of human involvement. Since 
mapping effort tend to centre around human activity, this means that large 
parts of Canada can go unmapped for a long time. To combat this, we have made 
use of the CANVEC data graciously made available by the Federal Government 
through the Department of Natural Resources. This information covers most of 
the country in its surveys. It is known to be somewhat inaccurate, but in the 
absence of information in a given area, it is definitely welcome.

Most of the imports that you are flagging for revision have been in place for 
years; in some cases, even before the policy for importation was in place. I'm 
sure that they didn't always meet the guidelines that are now in place within 
the larger OSM community, but the fact remains that the information that they 
represent is invaluable to the Canadian portion of the map and the mappers here.

If you wish to have that data become higher in quality, you are on the same 
side as the Canadian mapping community. We know the limitations of CANVEC and 
are working to allieviate them. Come join our OSM talk list and discuss your 
concerns with us. We are very welcoming to any points of view on the map. This 
allows all of us to come to a mutual understanding and solution to the problems 
with the imported data that you highlight.

Our list is talk-ca@openstreetmap.org

Thanks,

Adam


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

Re: [Talk-ca] broken forests in eastern Canada

[Adam Martin]

I've contacted him as well. Here's what I sent:

Good day, Nakaner

I am a resident of Canada and a contributor to OSM here. Looking over your
profile, you have over 5,500 edits across the OSM project, making you a
skilled mapper. It has come to the attention of the Canadian OSM community
recently that you have been performing work here and we appreciate that.
However, it has also come to our attention that much of the work you are
doing involves reverting the CANVEC data imports that we use here without
consultation with the local OSM group.

As you know, mapping is an involved process, especially in a country as
large geographically as Canada. Our population is relatively low, which
results in large expanses of land being effectively free of human
involvement. Since mapping effort tend to centre around human activity,
this means that large parts of Canada can go unmapped for a long time. To
combat this, we have made use of the CANVEC data graciously made available
by the Federal Government through the Department of Natural Resources. This
information covers most of the country in its surveys. It is known to be
somewhat inaccurate, but in the absence of information in a given area, it
is definitely welcome.

Most of the imports that you are flagging for revision have been in place
for years; in some cases, even before the policy for importation was in
place. I'm sure that they didn't always meet the guidelines that are now in
place within the larger OSM community, but the fact remains that the
information that they represent is invaluable to the Canadian portion of
the map and the mappers here.

If you wish to have that data become higher in quality, you are on the same
side as the Canadian mapping community. We know the limitations of CANVEC
and are working to allieviate them. Come join our OSM talk list and discuss
your concerns with us. We are very welcoming to any points of view on the
map. This allows all of us to come to a mutual understanding and solution
to the problems with the imported data that you highlight.

Our list is talk-ca@openstreetmap.org

Thanks,

Adam

On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 8:09 PM, john whelan  wrote:

> But Daniel's comments make sense, I'm not sure we should go for this type
> of approach.
>
> Still I concur with them.  On the forests there is an issue but its not
> open to a simplistic approach and hence difficult to resolve.
>
> John
>
> On 30 August 2016 at 18:28, James  wrote:
>
>> I'm totally in agreement with Daniel, especially that it creates a
>> hostile community
>>
>> On Aug 30, 2016 6:05 PM, "Pierre Béland"  wrote:
>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>> J'invite les autres contributeurs canadiens à indiquer leur accord avec
>>> le message de Daniel. :)
>>>
>>> I invite other canadian OSM contributors to express their agreement with
>>> Daniel message. :)
>>>
>>>
>>> Pierre
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> *De :* Begin Daniel 
>>> *À :* James ; Adam Martin 
>>>
>>> *Cc :* Talk-CA OpenStreetMap 
>>> *Envoyé le :* mardi 30 août 2016 17h35
>>> *Objet :* Re: [Talk-ca] broken forests in eastern Canada
>>>
>>> I have contacted the user that is about/has deleted some changesets
>>> imported from Canvec. I may agree on some of his comments but totally
>>> disagree on the method he is using to make his point.
>>>
>>> I do not know what the DWG will do about this guy but here is the
>>> message I sent him...
>>> Bonjour Nakaner, I understand that you wish the data in OSM being
>>> accurate, well-structured and made according to the rules developed by the
>>> OSM community. However, I would strongly suggest that you discuss your
>>> point with the Canadian community before deleting any changesets.
>>>
>>> Canvec imports are running for more than 6 years and the structure of
>>> the data was discussed with the Canadian OSM community, including OSMF
>>> members, for more than a year. The result is a compromise that used to suit
>>> most members. The rules you are mentioning in the comments you leave where
>>> not even written at that time.
>>>
>>> Most Canadian importers simply keep doing what they used to do years
>>> ago. If you consider they should not, have a discussion with the whole
>>> Canadian community. You will then be able to make your point, make everyone
>>> aware of these rules and understand your concerns.
>>>
>>> You will then be able to build a stronger community, not discourage
>>> people to contribute because they have made errors...
>>>
>>> Daniel
>>>
>>> *From:* James [mailto:james2...@gmail.com]
>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, 30 August, 2016 09:18
>>> *To:* Adam Martin
>>> *Cc:* Talk-CA OpenStreetMap
>>> *Subject:* Re: [Talk-ca] broken forests in eastern Canada
>>>
>>> He's even going to revert my work:
>>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/41776742
>>> I've forwarded this to the DWG, it's getting rediculous.
>>>
>>> 

Re: [Talk-ca] broken forests in eastern Canada

[john whelan]

But Daniel's comments make sense, I'm not sure we should go for this type
of approach.

Still I concur with them.  On the forests there is an issue but its not
open to a simplistic approach and hence difficult to resolve.

John

On 30 August 2016 at 18:28, James  wrote:

> I'm totally in agreement with Daniel, especially that it creates a hostile
> community
>
> On Aug 30, 2016 6:05 PM, "Pierre Béland"  wrote:
>
>> +1
>>
>> J'invite les autres contributeurs canadiens à indiquer leur accord avec
>> le message de Daniel. :)
>>
>> I invite other canadian OSM contributors to express their agreement with
>> Daniel message. :)
>>
>>
>> Pierre
>>
>>
>> --
>> *De :* Begin Daniel 
>> *À :* James ; Adam Martin 
>> *Cc :* Talk-CA OpenStreetMap 
>> *Envoyé le :* mardi 30 août 2016 17h35
>> *Objet :* Re: [Talk-ca] broken forests in eastern Canada
>>
>> I have contacted the user that is about/has deleted some changesets
>> imported from Canvec. I may agree on some of his comments but totally
>> disagree on the method he is using to make his point.
>>
>> I do not know what the DWG will do about this guy but here is the message
>> I sent him...
>> Bonjour Nakaner, I understand that you wish the data in OSM being
>> accurate, well-structured and made according to the rules developed by the
>> OSM community. However, I would strongly suggest that you discuss your
>> point with the Canadian community before deleting any changesets.
>>
>> Canvec imports are running for more than 6 years and the structure of the
>> data was discussed with the Canadian OSM community, including OSMF members,
>> for more than a year. The result is a compromise that used to suit most
>> members. The rules you are mentioning in the comments you leave where not
>> even written at that time.
>>
>> Most Canadian importers simply keep doing what they used to do years ago.
>> If you consider they should not, have a discussion with the whole Canadian
>> community. You will then be able to make your point, make everyone aware of
>> these rules and understand your concerns.
>>
>> You will then be able to build a stronger community, not discourage
>> people to contribute because they have made errors...
>>
>> Daniel
>>
>> *From:* James [mailto:james2...@gmail.com]
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, 30 August, 2016 09:18
>> *To:* Adam Martin
>> *Cc:* Talk-CA OpenStreetMap
>> *Subject:* Re: [Talk-ca] broken forests in eastern Canada
>>
>> He's even going to revert my work:
>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/41776742
>> I've forwarded this to the DWG, it's getting rediculous.
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 9:14 AM, Adam Martin 
>> wrote:
>> That's a pretty harsh thing to deal with. Imports are difficult and the
>> time needed to get them right is not a small investment. To have someone
>> review this work is a valuable service, but I don't think just blanket
>> reverting due to the violation of one rule is the solution, especially in
>> context of the lack of data in some of those areas. The CANVEC stuff will
>> do until surveys or satellite data catches up with those areas.
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 10:35 AM, John Marshall  wrote:
>> Andrew, I hear you! I have been trying to add data around unmapped
>> Northern Communities around James Bay and Nunavut. But after someone revert
>> some of my work I'm stopping:(
>>
>> John
>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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] broken forests in eastern Canada

[James]

I'm totally in agreement with Daniel, especially that it creates a hostile
community

On Aug 30, 2016 6:05 PM, "Pierre Béland"  wrote:

> +1
>
> J'invite les autres contributeurs canadiens à indiquer leur accord avec le
> message de Daniel. :)
>
> I invite other canadian OSM contributors to express their agreement with
> Daniel message. :)
>
>
> Pierre
>
>
> --
> *De :* Begin Daniel 
> *À :* James ; Adam Martin 
> *Cc :* Talk-CA OpenStreetMap 
> *Envoyé le :* mardi 30 août 2016 17h35
> *Objet :* Re: [Talk-ca] broken forests in eastern Canada
>
> I have contacted the user that is about/has deleted some changesets
> imported from Canvec. I may agree on some of his comments but totally
> disagree on the method he is using to make his point.
>
> I do not know what the DWG will do about this guy but here is the message
> I sent him...
> Bonjour Nakaner, I understand that you wish the data in OSM being
> accurate, well-structured and made according to the rules developed by the
> OSM community. However, I would strongly suggest that you discuss your
> point with the Canadian community before deleting any changesets.
>
> Canvec imports are running for more than 6 years and the structure of the
> data was discussed with the Canadian OSM community, including OSMF members,
> for more than a year. The result is a compromise that used to suit most
> members. The rules you are mentioning in the comments you leave where not
> even written at that time.
>
> Most Canadian importers simply keep doing what they used to do years ago.
> If you consider they should not, have a discussion with the whole Canadian
> community. You will then be able to make your point, make everyone aware of
> these rules and understand your concerns.
>
> You will then be able to build a stronger community, not discourage people
> to contribute because they have made errors...
>
> Daniel
>
> *From:* James [mailto:james2...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, 30 August, 2016 09:18
> *To:* Adam Martin
> *Cc:* Talk-CA OpenStreetMap
> *Subject:* Re: [Talk-ca] broken forests in eastern Canada
>
> He's even going to revert my work:
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/41776742
> I've forwarded this to the DWG, it's getting rediculous.
>
> On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 9:14 AM, Adam Martin 
> wrote:
> That's a pretty harsh thing to deal with. Imports are difficult and the
> time needed to get them right is not a small investment. To have someone
> review this work is a valuable service, but I don't think just blanket
> reverting due to the violation of one rule is the solution, especially in
> context of the lack of data in some of those areas. The CANVEC stuff will
> do until surveys or satellite data catches up with those areas.
>
> On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 10:35 AM, John Marshall  wrote:
> Andrew, I hear you! I have been trying to add data around unmapped
> Northern Communities around James Bay and Nunavut. But after someone revert
> some of my work I'm stopping:(
>
> John
>
>
> ___
> 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] broken forests in eastern Canada

[Pierre Béland]

+1
J'invite les autres contributeurs canadiens à indiquer leur accord avec le 
message de Daniel. :)
I invite other canadian OSM contributors to express their agreement with Daniel 
message. :)
  
Pierre 


  De : Begin Daniel 
 À : James ; Adam Martin  
Cc : Talk-CA OpenStreetMap 
 Envoyé le : mardi 30 août 2016 17h35
 Objet : Re: [Talk-ca] broken forests in eastern Canada
   
#yiv2492822147 #yiv2492822147 -- _filtered #yiv2492822147 
{font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv2492822147 
{font-family:Tahoma;panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}#yiv2492822147 
#yiv2492822147 p.yiv2492822147MsoNormal, #yiv2492822147 
li.yiv2492822147MsoNormal, #yiv2492822147 div.yiv2492822147MsoNormal 
{margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv2492822147 a:link, 
#yiv2492822147 span.yiv2492822147MsoHyperlink 
{color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv2492822147 a:visited, #yiv2492822147 
span.yiv2492822147MsoHyperlinkFollowed 
{color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv2492822147 
span.yiv2492822147EmailStyle17 {color:#1F497D;}#yiv2492822147 
.yiv2492822147MsoChpDefault {} _filtered #yiv2492822147 {margin:1.0in 1.0in 
1.0in 1.0in;}#yiv2492822147 div.yiv2492822147WordSection1 {}#yiv2492822147 I 
have contacted the user that is about/has deleted some changesets imported from 
Canvec. I may agree on some of his comments but totally disagree on the method 
he is using to make his point.     I do not know what the DWG will do about 
this guy but here is the message I sent him...  Bonjour Nakaner, I understand 
that you wish the data in OSM being accurate, well-structured and made 
according to the rules developed by the OSM community. However, I would 
strongly suggest that you discuss your point with the Canadian community before 
deleting any changesets.    Canvec imports are running for more than 6 years 
and the structure of the data was discussed with the Canadian OSM community, 
including OSMF members, for more than a year. The result is a compromise that 
used to suit most members. The rules you are mentioning in the comments you 
leave where not even written at that time.    Most Canadian importers simply 
keep doing what they used to do years ago. If you consider they should not, 
have a discussion with the whole Canadian community. You will then be able to 
make your point, make everyone aware of these rules and understand your 
concerns.    You will then be able to build a stronger community, not 
discourage people to contribute because they have made errors...    Daniel    
From: James [mailto:james2...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, 30 August, 2016 09:18
To: Adam Martin
Cc: Talk-CA OpenStreetMap
Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] broken forests in eastern Canada    He's even going to 
revert my work:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/41776742 I've forwarded this to the DWG, 
it's getting rediculous.    On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 9:14 AM, Adam Martin 
 wrote: That's a pretty harsh thing to deal with. 
Imports are difficult and the time needed to get them right is not a small 
investment. To have someone review this work is a valuable service, but I don't 
think just blanket reverting due to the violation of one rule is the solution, 
especially in context of the lack of data in some of those areas. The CANVEC 
stuff will do until surveys or satellite data catches up with those areas.    
On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 10:35 AM, John Marshall  wrote: 
Andrew, I hear you! I have been trying to add data around unmapped Northern 
Communities around James Bay and Nunavut. But after someone revert some of my 
work I'm stopping:(    John    
___
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] broken forests in eastern Canada

[Begin Daniel]

I have contacted the user that is about/has deleted some changesets imported 
from Canvec. I may agree on some of his comments but totally disagree on the 
method he is using to make his point.

I do not know what the DWG will do about this guy but here is the message I 
sent him...
Bonjour Nakaner, I understand that you wish the data in OSM being accurate, 
well-structured and made according to the rules developed by the OSM community. 
However, I would strongly suggest that you discuss your point with the Canadian 
community before deleting any changesets.

Canvec imports are running for more than 6 years and the structure of the data 
was discussed with the Canadian OSM community, including OSMF members, for more 
than a year. The result is a compromise that used to suit most members. The 
rules you are mentioning in the comments you leave where not even written at 
that time.

Most Canadian importers simply keep doing what they used to do years ago. If 
you consider they should not, have a discussion with the whole Canadian 
community. You will then be able to make your point, make everyone aware of 
these rules and understand your concerns.

You will then be able to build a stronger community, not discourage people to 
contribute because they have made errors...

Daniel

From: James [mailto:james2...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, 30 August, 2016 09:18
To: Adam Martin
Cc: Talk-CA OpenStreetMap
Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] broken forests in eastern Canada

He's even going to revert my work:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/41776742
I've forwarded this to the DWG, it's getting rediculous.

On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 9:14 AM, Adam Martin 
> wrote:
That's a pretty harsh thing to deal with. Imports are difficult and the time 
needed to get them right is not a small investment. To have someone review this 
work is a valuable service, but I don't think just blanket reverting due to the 
violation of one rule is the solution, especially in context of the lack of 
data in some of those areas. The CANVEC stuff will do until surveys or 
satellite data catches up with those areas.

On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 10:35 AM, John Marshall 
> wrote:
Andrew, I hear you! I have been trying to add data around unmapped Northern 
Communities around James Bay and Nunavut. But after someone revert some of my 
work I'm stopping:(

John

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

Re: [Talk-ca] broken forests in eastern Canada

[James]

He's even going to revert my work:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/41776742
I've forwarded this to the DWG, it's getting rediculous.

On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 9:14 AM, Adam Martin 
wrote:

> That's a pretty harsh thing to deal with. Imports are difficult and the
> time needed to get them right is not a small investment. To have someone
> review this work is a valuable service, but I don't think just blanket
> reverting due to the violation of one rule is the solution, especially in
> context of the lack of data in some of those areas. The CANVEC stuff will
> do until surveys or satellite data catches up with those areas.
>
> On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 10:35 AM, John Marshall  wrote:
>
>> Andrew, I hear you! I have been trying to add data around unmapped
>> Northern Communities around James Bay and Nunavut. But after someone revert
>> some of my work I'm stopping:(
>>
>> John
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 8:49 AM, Andrew 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 2016-08-29 at 23:47 -0400, Gordon Dewis wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Aug 29, 2016, at 11:12 PM, Antoine Beaupré 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2016-08-25 10:13:25, Gordon Dewis wrote:
>>>
>>> Alan is right. I've brought in a few tiles worth of forests from Canvec
>>> in
>>> the area you're talking about, but they were non-trivial to deal with
>>> compared to most other features. I kept running into limits in the tools
>>> I
>>> was using at the time and I haven't returned to them since.
>>>
>>>
>>> Yeah, that's what I figured I hope my comment didn't come across as
>>> criticizing the work that was done importing that data into OSM - I know
>>> how challenging and frustrating that work can be.
>>>
>>> But I must admit it seems a little rough to have those patches up
>>> there. I don't mind the "seams" between the CANVEC imported blocks,
>>> which don't seem to show up on the main map anymore anyways. But
>>> the *missing* blocks are really problematic and confusing. And they show
>>> up not only all the way up north and in weird places, but in critical
>>> areas. for example, here's a blank spot right north of Canada's capital:
>>>
>>> http://osm.org/go/cIhYCSU-?m=
>>>
>>> It seems a whole area was just not imported up there... oops! This shows
>>> up here and there in seemingly random places.
>>>
>>>
>>> Whoever was working on it was probably struggling with the tiles and
>>> subtitles in Canvec and threw in the towel. I was working on the forests
>>> around Golden Lake, for example, and ran into problems and limitations with
>>> the tools I was using at the time. I would love to import more, but it’s a
>>> daunting task.
>>>
>>> Another problem I noticed is when trying to merge “new” forests with
>>> existing forests was the existing forests would disappear because the
>>> topology changed, similar to problems you can see with lakes and islands.
>>> That alone was enough to make me back off and undo the inadvertent damage.
>>>
>>> I wonder if it wouldn't be better to remove parts of the CANVEC import
>>> until we can figure out how to better import them in the future, if, of
>>> course, we have a documented way of restoring the state of affairs we
>>> have now... As was mentionned elsewhere, it seems to me that the data
>>> that is there now somewhat makes it more difficult to go forward and
>>> hides more important data (like park boundaries).
>>>
>>>
>>> Unless the parts of Canvec are going to be replaced with more
>>> comprehensive coverage, I think that removing the existing forests would
>>> not be a Good Thing.
>>>
>>> I believe it would be more important to map out park boundaries than
>>> actual forest limits which, quite unfortunately, change in pretty
>>> dramatic ways in Québec, due to massive logging that has been happening
>>> for decades.
>>>
>>>
>>> Park boundaries are mostly in already, aren’t they? They are fairly easy
>>> features to import compared to forests.
>>>
>>>
>>> Tell you what, I do what I can to import the data, and fill in the gaps.
>>>
>>> I stopped importing data about a year ago, my skin just wasn't thick
>>> enough.
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> 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
>
>


-- 
外に遊びに行こう！
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] broken forests in eastern Canada

[Adam Martin]

That's a pretty harsh thing to deal with. Imports are difficult and the
time needed to get them right is not a small investment. To have someone
review this work is a valuable service, but I don't think just blanket
reverting due to the violation of one rule is the solution, especially in
context of the lack of data in some of those areas. The CANVEC stuff will
do until surveys or satellite data catches up with those areas.

On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 10:35 AM, John Marshall  wrote:

> Andrew, I hear you! I have been trying to add data around unmapped
> Northern Communities around James Bay and Nunavut. But after someone revert
> some of my work I'm stopping:(
>
> John
>
> On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 8:49 AM, Andrew 
> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 2016-08-29 at 23:47 -0400, Gordon Dewis wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Aug 29, 2016, at 11:12 PM, Antoine Beaupré 
>> wrote:
>>
>> On 2016-08-25 10:13:25, Gordon Dewis wrote:
>>
>> Alan is right. I've brought in a few tiles worth of forests from Canvec in
>> the area you're talking about, but they were non-trivial to deal with
>> compared to most other features. I kept running into limits in the tools I
>> was using at the time and I haven't returned to them since.
>>
>>
>> Yeah, that's what I figured I hope my comment didn't come across as
>> criticizing the work that was done importing that data into OSM - I know
>> how challenging and frustrating that work can be.
>>
>> But I must admit it seems a little rough to have those patches up
>> there. I don't mind the "seams" between the CANVEC imported blocks,
>> which don't seem to show up on the main map anymore anyways. But
>> the *missing* blocks are really problematic and confusing. And they show
>> up not only all the way up north and in weird places, but in critical
>> areas. for example, here's a blank spot right north of Canada's capital:
>>
>> http://osm.org/go/cIhYCSU-?m=
>>
>> It seems a whole area was just not imported up there... oops! This shows
>> up here and there in seemingly random places.
>>
>>
>> Whoever was working on it was probably struggling with the tiles and
>> subtitles in Canvec and threw in the towel. I was working on the forests
>> around Golden Lake, for example, and ran into problems and limitations with
>> the tools I was using at the time. I would love to import more, but it’s a
>> daunting task.
>>
>> Another problem I noticed is when trying to merge “new” forests with
>> existing forests was the existing forests would disappear because the
>> topology changed, similar to problems you can see with lakes and islands.
>> That alone was enough to make me back off and undo the inadvertent damage.
>>
>> I wonder if it wouldn't be better to remove parts of the CANVEC import
>> until we can figure out how to better import them in the future, if, of
>> course, we have a documented way of restoring the state of affairs we
>> have now... As was mentionned elsewhere, it seems to me that the data
>> that is there now somewhat makes it more difficult to go forward and
>> hides more important data (like park boundaries).
>>
>>
>> Unless the parts of Canvec are going to be replaced with more
>> comprehensive coverage, I think that removing the existing forests would
>> not be a Good Thing.
>>
>> I believe it would be more important to map out park boundaries than
>> actual forest limits which, quite unfortunately, change in pretty
>> dramatic ways in Québec, due to massive logging that has been happening
>> for decades.
>>
>>
>> Park boundaries are mostly in already, aren’t they? They are fairly easy
>> features to import compared to forests.
>>
>>
>> Tell you what, I do what I can to import the data, and fill in the gaps.
>>
>> I stopped importing data about a year ago, my skin just wasn't thick
>> enough.
>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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] broken forests in eastern Canada

[John Marshall]

Andrew, I hear you! I have been trying to add data around unmapped Northern
Communities around James Bay and Nunavut. But after someone revert some of
my work I'm stopping:(

John

On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 8:49 AM, Andrew  wrote:

> On Mon, 2016-08-29 at 23:47 -0400, Gordon Dewis wrote:
>
>
> On Aug 29, 2016, at 11:12 PM, Antoine Beaupré 
> wrote:
>
> On 2016-08-25 10:13:25, Gordon Dewis wrote:
>
> Alan is right. I've brought in a few tiles worth of forests from Canvec in
> the area you're talking about, but they were non-trivial to deal with
> compared to most other features. I kept running into limits in the tools I
> was using at the time and I haven't returned to them since.
>
>
> Yeah, that's what I figured I hope my comment didn't come across as
> criticizing the work that was done importing that data into OSM - I know
> how challenging and frustrating that work can be.
>
> But I must admit it seems a little rough to have those patches up
> there. I don't mind the "seams" between the CANVEC imported blocks,
> which don't seem to show up on the main map anymore anyways. But
> the *missing* blocks are really problematic and confusing. And they show
> up not only all the way up north and in weird places, but in critical
> areas. for example, here's a blank spot right north of Canada's capital:
>
> http://osm.org/go/cIhYCSU-?m=
>
> It seems a whole area was just not imported up there... oops! This shows
> up here and there in seemingly random places.
>
>
> Whoever was working on it was probably struggling with the tiles and
> subtitles in Canvec and threw in the towel. I was working on the forests
> around Golden Lake, for example, and ran into problems and limitations with
> the tools I was using at the time. I would love to import more, but it’s a
> daunting task.
>
> Another problem I noticed is when trying to merge “new” forests with
> existing forests was the existing forests would disappear because the
> topology changed, similar to problems you can see with lakes and islands.
> That alone was enough to make me back off and undo the inadvertent damage.
>
> I wonder if it wouldn't be better to remove parts of the CANVEC import
> until we can figure out how to better import them in the future, if, of
> course, we have a documented way of restoring the state of affairs we
> have now... As was mentionned elsewhere, it seems to me that the data
> that is there now somewhat makes it more difficult to go forward and
> hides more important data (like park boundaries).
>
>
> Unless the parts of Canvec are going to be replaced with more
> comprehensive coverage, I think that removing the existing forests would
> not be a Good Thing.
>
> I believe it would be more important to map out park boundaries than
> actual forest limits which, quite unfortunately, change in pretty
> dramatic ways in Québec, due to massive logging that has been happening
> for decades.
>
>
> Park boundaries are mostly in already, aren’t they? They are fairly easy
> features to import compared to forests.
>
>
> Tell you what, I do what I can to import the data, and fill in the gaps.
>
> I stopped importing data about a year ago, my skin just wasn't thick
> enough.
>
>
> ___
> 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] broken forests in eastern Canada

[James]

Andrew, you best be careful there is a german that is reverting CanVec
imports for stupid little reasons see:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/39517002

On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 8:49 AM, Andrew  wrote:

> On Mon, 2016-08-29 at 23:47 -0400, Gordon Dewis wrote:
>
>
> On Aug 29, 2016, at 11:12 PM, Antoine Beaupré 
> wrote:
>
> On 2016-08-25 10:13:25, Gordon Dewis wrote:
>
> Alan is right. I've brought in a few tiles worth of forests from Canvec in
> the area you're talking about, but they were non-trivial to deal with
> compared to most other features. I kept running into limits in the tools I
> was using at the time and I haven't returned to them since.
>
>
> Yeah, that's what I figured I hope my comment didn't come across as
> criticizing the work that was done importing that data into OSM - I know
> how challenging and frustrating that work can be.
>
> But I must admit it seems a little rough to have those patches up
> there. I don't mind the "seams" between the CANVEC imported blocks,
> which don't seem to show up on the main map anymore anyways. But
> the *missing* blocks are really problematic and confusing. And they show
> up not only all the way up north and in weird places, but in critical
> areas. for example, here's a blank spot right north of Canada's capital:
>
> http://osm.org/go/cIhYCSU-?m=
>
> It seems a whole area was just not imported up there... oops! This shows
> up here and there in seemingly random places.
>
>
> Whoever was working on it was probably struggling with the tiles and
> subtitles in Canvec and threw in the towel. I was working on the forests
> around Golden Lake, for example, and ran into problems and limitations with
> the tools I was using at the time. I would love to import more, but it’s a
> daunting task.
>
> Another problem I noticed is when trying to merge “new” forests with
> existing forests was the existing forests would disappear because the
> topology changed, similar to problems you can see with lakes and islands.
> That alone was enough to make me back off and undo the inadvertent damage.
>
> I wonder if it wouldn't be better to remove parts of the CANVEC import
> until we can figure out how to better import them in the future, if, of
> course, we have a documented way of restoring the state of affairs we
> have now... As was mentionned elsewhere, it seems to me that the data
> that is there now somewhat makes it more difficult to go forward and
> hides more important data (like park boundaries).
>
>
> Unless the parts of Canvec are going to be replaced with more
> comprehensive coverage, I think that removing the existing forests would
> not be a Good Thing.
>
> I believe it would be more important to map out park boundaries than
> actual forest limits which, quite unfortunately, change in pretty
> dramatic ways in Québec, due to massive logging that has been happening
> for decades.
>
>
> Park boundaries are mostly in already, aren’t they? They are fairly easy
> features to import compared to forests.
>
>
> Tell you what, I do what I can to import the data, and fill in the gaps.
>
> I stopped importing data about a year ago, my skin just wasn't thick
> enough.
>
>
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>
>


-- 
外に遊びに行こう！
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] broken forests in eastern Canada

[Pierre Béland]

Effectivement, nous essayons de progresser collectivement. Effacer ce qui a été 
fait n'est pas une solution. Et nous hésitions à compléter l'import d'immenses 
zones au nord du Canada dû aux divers problèmes rencontrés.

Il m'arrive à l'occasion de couper un grand polygone représentant une forêt le 
long d'un cours d'eau ou route. Mais ce n'est pas un travail facile.
Pour ce qui est des forêts où il y a des coupes forestières, nous ne devons pas 
tenter de faire de la découpe et montrer ces zones.  Ce n'est qu'une situation 
transitoire. On y retourne dix ans plus tard et la forêt est revenue.

Il nous faut des outils qui identifient de tels problèmes. Il serait 
intéressant si quelqu'un pouvait développer un script qui analyse les polygones 
forestiers pour y repérer les erreurs, établir une liste des polygones à 
réviser.
 
Pierre 


  De : Begin Daniel 
 À : James ; Gordon Dewis  
Cc : Antoine Beaupré ; Talk-CA OpenStreetMap 

 Envoyé le : mardi 30 août 2016 6h30
 Objet : Re: [Talk-ca] broken forests in eastern Canada
   
#yiv4747885180 #yiv4747885180 -- _filtered #yiv4747885180 
{font-family:Helvetica;panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;} _filtered #yiv4747885180 
{font-family:Helvetica;panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;} _filtered #yiv4747885180 
{font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv4747885180 
{font-family:Tahoma;panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}#yiv4747885180 
#yiv4747885180 p.yiv4747885180MsoNormal, #yiv4747885180 
li.yiv4747885180MsoNormal, #yiv4747885180 div.yiv4747885180MsoNormal 
{margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv4747885180 a:link, 
#yiv4747885180 span.yiv4747885180MsoHyperlink 
{color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv4747885180 a:visited, #yiv4747885180 
span.yiv4747885180MsoHyperlinkFollowed 
{color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv4747885180 p 
{margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv4747885180 
span.yiv4747885180EmailStyle18 {color:#1F497D;}#yiv4747885180 
.yiv4747885180MsoChpDefault {} _filtered #yiv4747885180 {margin:1.0in 1.0in 
1.0in 1.0in;}#yiv4747885180 div.yiv4747885180WordSection1 {}#yiv4747885180 I 
agree with James, until we have mapped all trees as nodes (!-) removing current 
forest is not a good idea. OSM works that way… you have some free time, you 
add/correct the data you can. Without doing this, the map would simply be empty 
(and we couldn’t see the white rectangles we are talking about!)    Daniel

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

Re: [Talk-ca] broken forests in eastern Canada

[Andrew]

On Mon, 2016-08-29 at 23:47 -0400, Gordon Dewis wrote:
> 
> > On Aug 29, 2016, at 11:12 PM, Antoine Beaupré 
> > org> wrote:
> > 
> > On 2016-08-25 10:13:25, Gordon Dewis wrote:
> > > Alan is right. I've brought in a few tiles worth of forests from
> > > Canvec in
> > > the area you're talking about, but they were non-trivial to deal
> > > with
> > > compared to most other features. I kept running into limits in
> > > the tools I
> > > was using at the time and I haven't returned to them since.
> > Yeah, that's what I figured I hope my comment didn't come
> > across as
> > criticizing the work that was done importing that data into OSM - I
> > know
> > how challenging and frustrating that work can be.
> > 
> > But I must admit it seems a little rough to have those patches up
> > there. I don't mind the "seams" between the CANVEC imported blocks,
> > which don't seem to show up on the main map anymore anyways. But
> > the *missing* blocks are really problematic and confusing. And they
> > show
> > up not only all the way up north and in weird places, but in
> > critical
> > areas. for example, here's a blank spot right north of Canada's
> > capital:
> > 
> > http://osm.org/go/cIhYCSU-?m=
> > 
> > It seems a whole area was just not imported up there... oops! This
> > shows
> > up here and there in seemingly random places.
> Whoever was working on it was probably struggling with the tiles and
> subtitles in Canvec and threw in the towel. I was working on the
> forests around Golden Lake, for example, and ran into problems and
> limitations with the tools I was using at the time. I would love to
> import more, but it’s a daunting task.
> 
> Another problem I noticed is when trying to merge “new” forests with
> existing forests was the existing forests would disappear because the
> topology changed, similar to problems you can see with lakes and
> islands. That alone was enough to make me back off and undo the
> inadvertent damage.
> 
> > I wonder if it wouldn't be better to remove parts of the CANVEC
> > import
> > until we can figure out how to better import them in the future,
> > if, of
> > course, we have a documented way of restoring the state of affairs
> > we
> > have now... As was mentionned elsewhere, it seems to me that the
> > data
> > that is there now somewhat makes it more difficult to go forward
> > and
> > hides more important data (like park boundaries).
> Unless the parts of Canvec are going to be replaced with more
> comprehensive coverage, I think that removing the existing forests
> would not be a Good Thing. 
> 
> > I believe it would be more important to map out park boundaries
> > than
> > actual forest limits which, quite unfortunately, change in pretty
> > dramatic ways in Québec, due to massive logging that has been
> > happening
> > for decades.
> Park boundaries are mostly in already, aren’t they? They are fairly
> easy features to import compared to forests.
Tell you what, I do what I can to import the data, and fill in the
gaps.
I stopped importing data about a year ago, my skin just wasn't thick
enough. 

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