Re: [Talk-ca] What should a Canadian style map look like?
On 9/12/2011 6:32 PM, Richard Weait wrote: Just brain-storming, so let's have suggestions without debate for now. What should the OSM data look like when styled for Canadians? I like the suggestions so far. I'd add - First Nations borders - Crown land boundries - special rendering for notable relations like the Trans-Canada Highway ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Canadian_best_practices: bilingual
On 12/05/2010 10:13 PM, Richard Weait wrote: Are there bilingual road signs in Ottawa? Yes. For example: http://bit.ly/9Y8JDn * This can lead to humourous situations when anglos like myself are absentminded. Shortly after moving to Ottawa, when driving around looking for a particular address, someone was heard to remark I think we just passed Rue Street. * http://maps.google.ca/maps?f=qsource=s_qhl=engeocode=q=ottawa,+onie=UTF8hq=hnear=Ottawa,+Ottawa+Division,+Ontarioll=45.404115,-75.704727spn=0.04134,0.154324z=13layer=ccbll=45.404139,-75.704525panoid=BmT-5yfkDgqB4QX40wGzKgcbp=12,74.82,,0,-18 ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] [Talk-us] NY Bicycle Routes
Sam's message has me somewhat confused as to who said what. In terms of cycling tagging in North America, where the legal framework is fairly similar* most places, my approach has been as follows, FWIW. First of all, it gets confusing quickly because we don't have much in the way of bicycle-specific laws. LCN makes sense for roads designated as recommended cycling routes. Cities like Toronto have roads and paths which have been deemed to be safe for cycling, which may or may not have cycling-specific infrastructure. RCN I'm not really sure about. To me, the Route Verte in Quebec would be a good example, though practical and perhaps linguistic reasons have led to it being classified NCN. I think that the sections of the Trans-Canada Trail that allow bicycle use would be properly tagged with NCN. As for what is useful for cyclists to determine what is a good cycling route, I think that the maxspeed and cycleway tags should be the highest priority. There are probably more definitions of what determines a good route than there are cyclists, so simply giving information about the infrastructure will allow each person to determine the best route for their own level of skill. * A notable exception being bylaws regarding the legality of bicycles on sidewalks. ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Users in Ottawa and Geobase
John Whelan wrote: Basically the map in Ottawa is unreliable but we don't know where. There seems to be no way of knowing whether a road has been mapped by GPS trace or sketched in by hand. If I understand the process correctly, to do an import from Geobase you would need to use a script (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Geobase2osm) to convert the files from Geobase to .osm files. If you were to select a section of the city, do the geobase2osm conversion, then open the existing osm data in JOSM as one layer and the Geobase osm file as a second layer, you should be able to get some ideas about which parts of the map need attention. I suspect that this might not be much more work than a wholesale delete+import anyway. Remember that if you delete and replace a large area, you will most likely need to do a bunch of fixing at the borders of that area. ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
[Talk-ca] Trans Canada Trail relation
Hi everyone, I was cleaning up some areas where the TCT shares its path with roads and other existing trails (here http://osm.org/go/ZXnePd73--, if you are interested). It appears that there used to be a relation, which was part of a mass deletion recently (http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/146837). Should this relation be resurrected, a new one created, or something else? ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Trans Canada Trail relation
Response inline. On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 5:15 PM, Sam Vekemans acrosscanadatra...@gmail.com wrote: Ya, just list that local trail with it's local name, as a relation but as a local or regional route. You should see physical signs saying Laurel Trail and/or 'Iron Horse Trail'. Just map these 2 trails as 'routes' and if they are cycle-able, the preference is to list it as a cycle-route, in that area of the country. IMO. ... if the Trail is a 'Route' then a 'route' can go on any surface type. But the actual gravel/paved segments should be labeled as they physically are (and physically named) on the ground. Okay, that part make sense to me, and that's what I've been (slowly) doing for the Avon Trail, as I hike/bike parts of it. (http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/143047) As for the Trans Canada Trail aspect: On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 9:13 AM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 8:56 AM, Adam Glauser adamglau...@gmail.com wrote: I was cleaning up some areas where the TCT shares its path with roads and other existing trails (here http://osm.org/go/ZXnePd73--, if you are interested). It appears that there used to be a relation, which was part of a mass deletion recently (http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/146837). Should this relation be resurrected, a new one created, or something else? Hey, Sam! Adam found something with our fingerprints on it! ;-) Adam, the history here http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/146837/history shows that this was deleted deliberately by andrzej as the relation had no members. [...] Earlier in the history Sam (acrosscanadatrails) says I asked him to remove his earlier work. I don't recall the details of the conversation, but I probably did. That Adam found part of the relation in Ontario. Sam's earlier additions in that history discussed trail portions in BC. Sam do you recall the details? Should this relation be replaced, without members or 'fixed' with members added? On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 5:15 PM, Sam Vekemans acrosscanadatra...@gmail.com wrote: No 'Trans Canada Trail' relation is needed. (until the copyright is fixed, see MEGA detail below). Okay, I had some trouble following the MEGA detail. I understand the bit about not really being able to tag a TCT relation as 'route=hiking' or 'route=cycling', as it is a mixed use trail, with different uses in different parts. I'm sure we can come up with some way of overcoming that obstacle. I think that the copyright to which Sam refers, and the earlier discussion Richard mentioned are related, as seen in this thread (http://www.mail-archive.com/talk-ca@openstreetmap.org/msg01053.html). If I follow that correctly, the .gpx traces from www.tctrail.ca are copyrighted and should not be used to add to OSM. However, my own surveys should be perfectly fine, unless I'm missing something. Given that I'm not referring to copyrighted data, and aside from the question about how to tag the relation, is there some other problem with highlighting the trails/roads/etc. that comprise the TCT in my area? ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Ontario 040P
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 1:10 PM, Adam Glauseradamglau...@gmail.com wrote: I've found (and since corrected) a couple more false-positive matches. It seems Potlatch doesn't like it when you take a long time to save changes. I've now _actually_ made the corrections. Way 35502496 was name=Willow Wood Drive,statscan:rbuid=3357623. Should be name=Woodrow Place,statscan:rbuid=3357623. This is tricky in part due to one Statscan feature corresponding to two different Geobase features (the entrance to the cul-de-sac and the circle-with-middle-barrier part). Oops, way 35502496 is in fact Havendale Place. Woodrow Place was a nearby unnamed way. ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Ontario 040P
I've found (and since corrected) a couple more false-positive matches. Ways 35518380 was name=Old Oak Place, statscan:rbuid=3357619. These tags should actually have been applied to way 35521248. The correct tags for the first way are name=Aspenwood Place, statscan:rbuid=3357613. Way 35502496 was name=Willow Wood Drive,statscan:rbuid=3357623. Should be name=Woodrow Place,statscan:rbuid=3357623. This is tricky in part due to one Statscan feature corresponding to two different Geobase features (the entrance to the cul-de-sac and the circle-with-middle-barrier part). I'll continue to report these unless I hear otherwise - I'm still new here, if this is just noise please let me know. Also, thanks to Steve's pointers about OpenJUMP and the StatsCan road name data, I've given names to a bunch of ways that Roadmatcher couldn't resolve, along with their StatsCan RB_UIDs, using a combination of the .shp file from the StatsCan website and local knowledge of the layout of the roads. ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Ontario 040P
On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 11:34 PM, Steve Singer wrote: On Sat, 13 Jun 2009, Adam Glauser wrote: I've found a way[1], which appears to have come in with this import, but is incorrectly named. I checked out the Geobase website and found their viewing tool[2], but I can't see the names for the NRN ways. How can I check whether this is, in fact, an error in the NRN data? Secondly, when I fix it, how should I be changing the import-related tags (such as attribution, source, and geobase:*)? The RoadNames in Ontario don't come from GeoBase, they come from the StatsCan data set. I run roadmatcher on the GeoBase and StatsCan data to try and assign names to GeoBase geometries. The statscan data is known to have positional issues. The only way you can check this is to look at both the StatsCan data and the GeoBase data together (using something like openjump) http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/images/3/32/Brookmill.jpg The blue lines are GeoBase roads. The green lines are StatsCan roads with the name. [...] So far this is the first report of a mismatched name in Ontario, The Statscan data must be particularly bad there, there are quite a few unnamed ways in that area too. You can see in http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/images/6/6c/Beaverwood.jpg that the Statscan Laurelwood drive diverges significantly from the NRN Laurelwood drive (it is a boulevard, the two parallel blue lines.) I've circled the NRN Laurelwood in red. The blue line with the arrow pointing to it is the NRN Beaverwood, which got incorrectly named Laurelwood. That had really confused me at first. At least I learned how to revert changes and undelete roads with Potlatch :) if the problem is widespread I can try adjusting the roadmatcher settings (which would mean fewer matches thus fewer roads with names). I'll report any other examples I find. To fix it I would recommened deleting the statscan:rbuid = 3357609 tag and fixing the name. Done, thanks for pointing me in the right direction. I also fixed Beaverwood. [1] http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/35515628 [2] http://www.geobase.ca/geobase/en/view.do?produit=nrn ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Ontario 040P
I've found a way[1], which appears to have come in with this import, but is incorrectly named. I checked out the Geobase website and found their viewing tool[2], but I can't see the names for the NRN ways. How can I check whether this is, in fact, an error in the NRN data? Secondly, when I fix it, how should I be changing the import-related tags (such as attribution, source, and geobase:*)? [1] http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/35515628 [2] http://www.geobase.ca/geobase/en/view.do?produit=nrn On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 9:15 AM, Steve Singerssinger...@sympatico.ca wrote: I wanted to confirm that no one is actively working on the import for the 040P Ontario area (waterloo, Cambridge, Woodstock). ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
