Re: [Talk-ca] Canadian imports: good or bad?
Bonjour Steve, I'm pretty comfortable with your propositions and wording, as a contributor :-) However, as data provider representative, my emails on this list aimed at providing information to help the community to better understand the product, not decide for them. So I invite the rest of the community to comment on it! Best regards, Daniel Ps: I'll write a little something about accuracy ( from home, as a contributor!-) -Original Message- From: Steve Singer [mailto:st...@ssinger.info] Sent: April 25, 2012 22:03 To: Bégin, Daniel Cc: Paul Norman; talk-ca@openstreetmap.org Subject: RE: [Talk-ca] Canadian imports: good or bad? On Wed, 25 Apr 2012, Bégin, Daniel wrote: > Steve, Paul, > > I was on the impression that the consensus was more about using Canvec > where it is the best available source and, when it is not, the data > could be imported, but only after an exhaustive verification using > available data/imagery. 'best available source' as a standard has appeal to me, and I think this varies by layer (ie your comments in the other email about older hydrography) I think often people are importing all of the layers at once when without evaluating what they are importing. > > Whatever is the consensus, it should be documented in the wiki. > Agreed. I think right now we have consensus on saying: * The osm-ca community wants to import Canvec data * The imports should be done carefully to avoid duplicating objects * Coastlines and large lakes should only be imported by experienced users (which is basically what the wiki already says) Paul proposed two additional guidelines here: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ca/2012-April/004721.html "1. The buildings data from CanVec should not be imported unless it can be verified against imagery, in which case you might as well trace the buildings from imagery." Ie if the imagery (and there is no other source like a local mapper) isn't good enough to verify the buildings then don't import them. It seems, to me, that so many of the 20+ year old building data is no longer valid that we might want to discourage the use of this layer without Do we have consensus on this point? "2. There is not a consensus among the community that CanVec data can be imported without verifying the data for internal consistency and where possible against imagery." I like the sentiment but I don't like the 'negative wording' it doesn't tell people what we DO have consensus on, so it doesn't tell them what they can import. Nor does it explicitly prevent any sort of import. My wording from this morning apparently wasn't good either. How about * When importing Canvec data you should verify that the data you are importing is consistent with other data. For example check that forests aren't sitting in lakes. Sometimes the different Canvec layers are not consistent because the data comes from different sources. You should try to fix consistency issues as you import data. (anyone should feel free to propose some better wording) Is there something we can say in the guidelines to help people judge accuracy? (In most of the areas I map I've found the Canvec data lines up VERY well with Bing and my GPS traces) Steve > Furthermore, I think that "internal consistency/accuracy/existence" > should be defined... > > consistency: ? > > Accuracy: Bing imageries in urban areas are pretty good and easy to > correct, if necessary, using available GPS tracks. It is not the case > outside these areas. > > I suspect that Bing imageries are not always corrected using a good > digital elevation model. It means that in hilly areas, the image shows > an object somewhere on the ground while the object is actually > somewhere else, due to Z distortion. > > Existence: Again, outside urban areas, the resolution of Bing > imageries doesn't allow for detailed validation. You won't be able to > see small objects, even if they are there! > > Best regards, > Daniel > > -----Original Message- > From: Steve Singer [mailto:st...@ssinger.info] > Sent: April 25, 2012 07:12 > To: Paul Norman > Cc: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org > Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Canadian imports: good or bad? > > On Wed, 25 Apr 2012, Paul Norman wrote: > >>> 2. There is not a consensus among the community that CanVec data can >>> be imported without verifying the data for internal consistency and >>> where possible against imagery. >> >> If no one disagrees with the fact there is not a consensus that >> importing CanVec without minimal verification is acceptable I'll go >> ahead and document on the Wiki, using Andrew Allison's examples. > > +1. >
Re: [Talk-ca] Canadian imports: good or bad?
On Wed, 25 Apr 2012, Bégin, Daniel wrote: Steve, Paul, I was on the impression that the consensus was more about using Canvec where it is the best available source and, when it is not, the data could be imported, but only after an exhaustive verification using available data/imagery. 'best available source' as a standard has appeal to me, and I think this varies by layer (ie your comments in the other email about older hydrography) I think often people are importing all of the layers at once when without evaluating what they are importing. Whatever is the consensus, it should be documented in the wiki. Agreed. I think right now we have consensus on saying: * The osm-ca community wants to import Canvec data * The imports should be done carefully to avoid duplicating objects * Coastlines and large lakes should only be imported by experienced users (which is basically what the wiki already says) Paul proposed two additional guidelines here: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ca/2012-April/004721.html "1. The buildings data from CanVec should not be imported unless it can be verified against imagery, in which case you might as well trace the buildings from imagery." Ie if the imagery (and there is no other source like a local mapper) isn't good enough to verify the buildings then don't import them. It seems, to me, that so many of the 20+ year old building data is no longer valid that we might want to discourage the use of this layer without Do we have consensus on this point? "2. There is not a consensus among the community that CanVec data can be imported without verifying the data for internal consistency and where possible against imagery." I like the sentiment but I don't like the 'negative wording' it doesn't tell people what we DO have consensus on, so it doesn't tell them what they can import. Nor does it explicitly prevent any sort of import. My wording from this morning apparently wasn't good either. How about * When importing Canvec data you should verify that the data you are importing is consistent with other data. For example check that forests aren't sitting in lakes. Sometimes the different Canvec layers are not consistent because the data comes from different sources. You should try to fix consistency issues as you import data. (anyone should feel free to propose some better wording) Is there something we can say in the guidelines to help people judge accuracy? (In most of the areas I map I've found the Canvec data lines up VERY well with Bing and my GPS traces) Steve Furthermore, I think that "internal consistency/accuracy/existence" should be defined... consistency: ? Accuracy: Bing imageries in urban areas are pretty good and easy to correct, if necessary, using available GPS tracks. It is not the case outside these areas. I suspect that Bing imageries are not always corrected using a good digital elevation model. It means that in hilly areas, the image shows an object somewhere on the ground while the object is actually somewhere else, due to Z distortion. Existence: Again, outside urban areas, the resolution of Bing imageries doesn't allow for detailed validation. You won't be able to see small objects, even if they are there! Best regards, Daniel -Original Message- From: Steve Singer [mailto:st...@ssinger.info] Sent: April 25, 2012 07:12 To: Paul Norman Cc: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Canadian imports: good or bad? On Wed, 25 Apr 2012, Paul Norman wrote: 2. There is not a consensus among the community that CanVec data can be imported without verifying the data for internal consistency and where possible against imagery. If no one disagrees with the fact there is not a consensus that importing CanVec without minimal verification is acceptable I'll go ahead and document on the Wiki, using Andrew Allison's examples. +1. Is there enough support to use the positive rather than the negative language, ie 'There is consensus among the community that Canvec data should only be imported when the data elements have been verified for internal consistency/accuracy/existence with the available imagery' Steve ___ 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
Re: [Talk-ca] Canadian imports: good or bad?
Haaa! It makes sense... Originally, hydrography and vegetation were fitting together. Now that we are gradually replacing the older hydrography with newer data from provinces, we find vegetation in water. It will be corrected when we will replace the vegetation with a new one extracted from satellite images 5 years ago. The same thing can happen between hydrography and road network. Thank for the clarification Daniel -Original Message- From: Paul Norman [mailto:penor...@mac.com] Sent: April 25, 2012 16:13 To: Bégin, Daniel; 'Steve Singer' Cc: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org Subject: RE: [Talk-ca] Canadian imports: good or bad? > From: Bégin, Daniel [mailto:daniel.be...@rncan-nrcan.gc.ca] > Subject: RE: [Talk-ca] Canadian imports: good or bad? > > Steve, Paul, > > I was on the impression that the consensus was more about using Canvec > where it is the best available source and, when it is not, the data > could be imported, but only after an exhaustive verification using > available data/imagery. > > Whatever is the consensus, it should be documented in the wiki. > > Furthermore, I think that "internal consistency/accuracy/existence" > should be defined... > > consistency: ? CanVec sometimes contradicts itself, for example it has trees in the water frequently. The coastline example I sent to you earlier would also be another example of where the data doesn't make sense. There are a few others that I've encountered. Typically what happens is one data source is significantly older than the other so CanVec says the land is being used for two contradictory uses at the same time. ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Canadian imports: good or bad?
> From: Bégin, Daniel [mailto:daniel.be...@rncan-nrcan.gc.ca] > Subject: RE: [Talk-ca] Canadian imports: good or bad? > > Steve, Paul, > > I was on the impression that the consensus was more about using Canvec > where it is the best available source and, when it is not, the data > could be imported, but only after an exhaustive verification using > available data/imagery. > > Whatever is the consensus, it should be documented in the wiki. > > Furthermore, I think that "internal consistency/accuracy/existence" > should be defined... > > consistency: ? CanVec sometimes contradicts itself, for example it has trees in the water frequently. The coastline example I sent to you earlier would also be another example of where the data doesn't make sense. There are a few others that I've encountered. Typically what happens is one data source is significantly older than the other so CanVec says the land is being used for two contradictory uses at the same time. ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Canadian imports: good or bad?
Steve, Paul, I was on the impression that the consensus was more about using Canvec where it is the best available source and, when it is not, the data could be imported, but only after an exhaustive verification using available data/imagery. Whatever is the consensus, it should be documented in the wiki. Furthermore, I think that "internal consistency/accuracy/existence" should be defined... consistency: ? Accuracy: Bing imageries in urban areas are pretty good and easy to correct, if necessary, using available GPS tracks. It is not the case outside these areas. I suspect that Bing imageries are not always corrected using a good digital elevation model. It means that in hilly areas, the image shows an object somewhere on the ground while the object is actually somewhere else, due to Z distortion. Existence: Again, outside urban areas, the resolution of Bing imageries doesn't allow for detailed validation. You won't be able to see small objects, even if they are there! Best regards, Daniel -Original Message- From: Steve Singer [mailto:st...@ssinger.info] Sent: April 25, 2012 07:12 To: Paul Norman Cc: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Canadian imports: good or bad? On Wed, 25 Apr 2012, Paul Norman wrote: >> 2. There is not a consensus among the community that CanVec data can >> be imported without verifying the data for internal consistency and >> where possible against imagery. > > If no one disagrees with the fact there is not a consensus that > importing CanVec without minimal verification is acceptable I'll go > ahead and document on the Wiki, using Andrew Allison's examples. +1. Is there enough support to use the positive rather than the negative language, ie 'There is consensus among the community that Canvec data should only be imported when the data elements have been verified for internal consistency/accuracy/existence with the available imagery' Steve > > > ___ > 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
Re: [Talk-ca] Canadian imports: good or bad?
On Wed, 25 Apr 2012, Paul Norman wrote: 2. There is not a consensus among the community that CanVec data can be imported without verifying the data for internal consistency and where possible against imagery. If no one disagrees with the fact there is not a consensus that importing CanVec without minimal verification is acceptable I'll go ahead and document on the Wiki, using Andrew Allison's examples. +1. Is there enough support to use the positive rather than the negative language, ie 'There is consensus among the community that Canvec data should only be imported when the data elements have been verified for internal consistency/accuracy/existence with the available imagery' Steve ___ 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] Canadian imports: good or bad?
> 2. There is not a consensus among the community that CanVec data can be > imported without verifying the data for internal consistency and where > possible against imagery. If no one disagrees with the fact there is not a consensus that importing CanVec without minimal verification is acceptable I'll go ahead and document on the Wiki, using Andrew Allison's examples. ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Canadian imports: good or bad?
Bonjour James, Really interesting suggestion! Actually, it is a natural step in data consideration : - First, you need data; - Then, you need information about the data! So, I will soon include metadata generation in the conversion process. A Metadata.txt file will be added to each .zip file. This file will contain the following information about .osm files content. - DateRange: Years range at which the data was captured/validated - CMAS: Circular Map Accuracy Standard Value in meters (Circular Accuracy at 90%) - TagValue: Corresponding Osm feature tag The content of the Metadata.txt file will look like this... DateRange CMAS TagValue - 2006-2011 03 highway=unclassified 2005-2011 03 highway=track 2005-2011 03 highway=secondary ... 1974-1974 25 tourism=attraction 1974-1974 25 railway=station 1974-1974 25 railway=rail 1974-1974 25 power=line 1974-1974 25 natural=wood 1974-1974 25 natural=wetland 1974-1974 25 natural=water ... 1974-1974 -1 natural=beach 1974-1974 -1 natural=bay 1974-1974 -1 leisure=nature_reserve Note: -1 stands for unknown values I'm completing tests and I'll add it to the conversion process. Regards, Daniel -Original Message- From: James A. Treacy [mailto:tre...@debian.org] Sent: April 17, 2012 15:26 To: Bégin, Daniel Cc: Paul Norman; talk-ca@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Canadian imports: good or bad? Daniel, As always, your work is really appreciated. Would it be possible, for at least some of the data, to have the age of the data included in the releases? While age by itself is not necessarily indicitave of the quality of the data, it is a factor that could help users when deciding to use it or not. For example, if I saw a road that was surveyed and built within the last 5 years I'd tend to put some trust in its location. If the data was 25 years old, not so much. On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 05:34:30PM +, Bégin, Daniel wrote: > Bonjour Paul, and all osmers > > Let me summarize the situation regarding NRCan-Canvec data. > > Good news... > - about a thousand files (maps) are brand new around Ellesmere Island > - Road network is updated every year for most of the provinces > > Old stories... > - YK,NT,NU were checked for changes about 10 years ago using 20m resolution > imageries. Some areas were updated using this imagery. > - We are replacing some of our hydrographic network with provincial data (BC > was the first replaced). It is usually more than 10 years old , our is older > than 25. > > Much older stories... > Actually, the rest of the NRCan-Canvec content is older than 25 years > (average 30, older 64). It concerns southern Canada... > - Buildings, railroads and other structures (obviously) > - Vegetation (wooded areas) - could soon be replaced with a 5 year old > automated classification using 30m imagery > - Wetlands > - Built-up areas > > You should not be surprise that some features are not up-to-date... > > I know that I've already done this exercise before but it is important > that the community is aware of the limitation of the data. This is the > same for all NRCan digital product (Canvec, Toporama, ...) and worst > for paper maps :-( > > As mentioned in another email, the main objective of providing the Canvec.osm > product was to help the community to focus on updating available data instead > of recapturing everything from scratch. And from there, eventually use it to > update our products. > > Since then, as a lot of Canvec data was imported, and updated ... > - we now use OSM data for changes detection (it help us planning GPS > field campaign for road updating in some provinces) > - we are looking at using OSM data to help us updating the entire Canvec > Product! > > It looks like a win-win situation for me! > > Best regards, > Daniel > > > Note: If anybody think this information should be added to the Canvec > wiki page, you can use the above information > > -Original Message- > From: Paul Norman [mailto:penor...@mac.com] > Sent: April 17, 2012 05:00 > To: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org > Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Canadian imports: good or bad? > > > From: Ian Bruseker [mailto:ian.bruse...@gmail.com] > > Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2012 9:31 PM > > To: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org > > Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Canadian imports: good or bad? > > > > On 2012-04-15, at 6:37 PM, Steve Singer wrote: > > > > > I also feel that not of all data sources are equal. Even within > > > Canvec some layers are excellent (ie roads and lakes in most of > > > the > > > country) while others are often so out of date it isn't worth the > > > time to import (ie buildings in much of South
Re: [Talk-ca] Canadian imports: good or bad?
Daniel, As always, your work is really appreciated. Would it be possible, for at least some of the data, to have the age of the data included in the releases? While age by itself is not necessarily indicitave of the quality of the data, it is a factor that could help users when deciding to use it or not. For example, if I saw a road that was surveyed and built within the last 5 years I'd tend to put some trust in its location. If the data was 25 years old, not so much. On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 05:34:30PM +, Bégin, Daniel wrote: > Bonjour Paul, and all osmers > > Let me summarize the situation regarding NRCan-Canvec data. > > Good news... > - about a thousand files (maps) are brand new around Ellesmere Island > - Road network is updated every year for most of the provinces > > Old stories... > - YK,NT,NU were checked for changes about 10 years ago using 20m resolution > imageries. Some areas were updated using this imagery. > - We are replacing some of our hydrographic network with provincial data (BC > was the first replaced). It is usually more than 10 years old , our is older > than 25. > > Much older stories... > Actually, the rest of the NRCan-Canvec content is older than 25 years > (average 30, older 64). It concerns southern Canada... > - Buildings, railroads and other structures (obviously) > - Vegetation (wooded areas) - could soon be replaced with a 5 year old > automated classification using 30m imagery > - Wetlands > - Built-up areas > > You should not be surprise that some features are not up-to-date... > > I know that I've already done this exercise before but it is important that > the community is aware of the limitation of the data. This is the same for > all NRCan digital product (Canvec, Toporama, ...) and worst for paper maps :-( > > As mentioned in another email, the main objective of providing the Canvec.osm > product was to help the community to focus on updating available data instead > of recapturing everything from scratch. And from there, eventually use it to > update our products. > > Since then, as a lot of Canvec data was imported, and updated ... > - we now use OSM data for changes detection (it help us planning GPS field > campaign for road updating in some provinces) > - we are looking at using OSM data to help us updating the entire Canvec > Product! > > It looks like a win-win situation for me! > > Best regards, > Daniel > > > Note: If anybody think this information should be added to the Canvec wiki > page, you can use the above information > > -Original Message----- > From: Paul Norman [mailto:penor...@mac.com] > Sent: April 17, 2012 05:00 > To: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org > Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Canadian imports: good or bad? > > > From: Ian Bruseker [mailto:ian.bruse...@gmail.com] > > Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2012 9:31 PM > > To: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org > > Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Canadian imports: good or bad? > > > > On 2012-04-15, at 6:37 PM, Steve Singer wrote: > > > > > I also feel that not of all data sources are equal. Even within > > > Canvec some layers are excellent (ie roads and lakes in most of the > > > country) while others are often so out of date it isn't worth the > > > time to import (ie buildings in much of Southern Ontario) > > > > > That's the third mention in a row of bad building data in Canvec. I'll > > chime in on that to say I found a hospital in St. Albert, Alberta that > > was marked as having come from an import. The hospital hasn't been > > there for 20 years. The new building is several kilometers away. Not > > just bad, full on dangerous if someone actually believed the data in > > OSM and tried to find help when they were hurt. :-( > > I thought it was just BC but it sounds like it's everywhere. > > Would I be correct in summarizing the opinions so far as 1. The buildings > data from CanVec should not be imported unless it can be verified against > imagery, in which case you might as well trace the buildings from imagery. > > 2. There is not a consensus among the community that CanVec data can be > imported without verifying the data for internal consistency and where > possible against imagery. > > > ___ > 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 -- James (Jay) Treacy tre...@debian.org ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Canadian imports: good or bad?
Bonjour Paul, and all osmers Let me summarize the situation regarding NRCan-Canvec data. Good news... - about a thousand files (maps) are brand new around Ellesmere Island - Road network is updated every year for most of the provinces Old stories... - YK,NT,NU were checked for changes about 10 years ago using 20m resolution imageries. Some areas were updated using this imagery. - We are replacing some of our hydrographic network with provincial data (BC was the first replaced). It is usually more than 10 years old , our is older than 25. Much older stories... Actually, the rest of the NRCan-Canvec content is older than 25 years (average 30, older 64). It concerns southern Canada... - Buildings, railroads and other structures (obviously) - Vegetation (wooded areas) - could soon be replaced with a 5 year old automated classification using 30m imagery - Wetlands - Built-up areas You should not be surprise that some features are not up-to-date... I know that I've already done this exercise before but it is important that the community is aware of the limitation of the data. This is the same for all NRCan digital product (Canvec, Toporama, ...) and worst for paper maps :-( As mentioned in another email, the main objective of providing the Canvec.osm product was to help the community to focus on updating available data instead of recapturing everything from scratch. And from there, eventually use it to update our products. Since then, as a lot of Canvec data was imported, and updated ... - we now use OSM data for changes detection (it help us planning GPS field campaign for road updating in some provinces) - we are looking at using OSM data to help us updating the entire Canvec Product! It looks like a win-win situation for me! Best regards, Daniel Note: If anybody think this information should be added to the Canvec wiki page, you can use the above information -Original Message- From: Paul Norman [mailto:penor...@mac.com] Sent: April 17, 2012 05:00 To: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Canadian imports: good or bad? > From: Ian Bruseker [mailto:ian.bruse...@gmail.com] > Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2012 9:31 PM > To: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org > Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Canadian imports: good or bad? > > On 2012-04-15, at 6:37 PM, Steve Singer wrote: > > > I also feel that not of all data sources are equal. Even within > > Canvec some layers are excellent (ie roads and lakes in most of the > > country) while others are often so out of date it isn't worth the > > time to import (ie buildings in much of Southern Ontario) > > > That's the third mention in a row of bad building data in Canvec. I'll > chime in on that to say I found a hospital in St. Albert, Alberta that > was marked as having come from an import. The hospital hasn't been > there for 20 years. The new building is several kilometers away. Not > just bad, full on dangerous if someone actually believed the data in > OSM and tried to find help when they were hurt. :-( I thought it was just BC but it sounds like it's everywhere. Would I be correct in summarizing the opinions so far as 1. The buildings data from CanVec should not be imported unless it can be verified against imagery, in which case you might as well trace the buildings from imagery. 2. There is not a consensus among the community that CanVec data can be imported without verifying the data for internal consistency and where possible against imagery. ___ 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] Canadian imports: good or bad?
Hello: I would take from this discussion that canvec data needs to be imported into the white spaces of Canada. I may be missing some historical experience / discussion of this process. Part of the fun aspect of OSM is finding things wrong on the map and correcting it. I think this is how people get hooked on OSM. Letting "errors" creep in may in fact help to get more people interested in OSM. Some guide lines should be developed to give mappers direction on how to import canvec. When a mapper undertakes to import a canvec "square" due care be taken to verify as much as possible using imagery overlay. I realize with some imagery your going to be awful lucky if you can even spot a road or river down there :-) When importing canvec the mapper / importer should treat the area they are importing as they would their own neighbourhood. If the area importing contain a large body of water convert it to natural= coastline. Run validator against each tile to minimize crossing ways and such. When streams cross a road assume that a culvert exists and the stream go under the road. Judgment would have to be used depending on the some urban, remoteness, primary road vs hiking trail aspect. I'm at a loss what should be done with those big square polygons? Joining / removing ways that are spit due to the tile nature of the canvec data. Now if someone would move that darn cloud in Sydney so I could tell if the train tracks go under the road :-) Comments, I think I should probably crawl under a rock I may have stirred a hornets nest. I'm going to go out geocaching, judging by the number of caches in an area there must be a trail there that not on the map yet. Andrew signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Canadian imports: good or bad?
> From: Ian Bruseker [mailto:ian.bruse...@gmail.com] > Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2012 9:31 PM > To: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org > Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Canadian imports: good or bad? > > On 2012-04-15, at 6:37 PM, Steve Singer wrote: > > > I also feel that not of all data sources are equal. Even within > > Canvec some layers are excellent (ie roads and lakes in most of the > > country) while others are often so out of date it isn't worth the time > > to import (ie buildings in much of Southern Ontario) > > > That's the third mention in a row of bad building data in Canvec. I'll > chime in on that to say I found a hospital in St. Albert, Alberta that > was marked as having come from an import. The hospital hasn't been there > for 20 years. The new building is several kilometers away. Not just bad, > full on dangerous if someone actually believed the data in OSM and tried > to find help when they were hurt. :-( I thought it was just BC but it sounds like it's everywhere. Would I be correct in summarizing the opinions so far as 1. The buildings data from CanVec should not be imported unless it can be verified against imagery, in which case you might as well trace the buildings from imagery. 2. There is not a consensus among the community that CanVec data can be imported without verifying the data for internal consistency and where possible against imagery. ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Canadian imports: good or bad?
On 2012-04-15, at 6:37 PM, Steve Singer wrote: > I also feel that not of all data sources are equal. Even within Canvec some > layers are excellent (ie roads and lakes in most of the country) while others > are often so out of date it isn't worth the time to import (ie buildings in > much of Southern Ontario) > That's the third mention in a row of bad building data in Canvec. I'll chime in on that to say I found a hospital in St. Albert, Alberta that was marked as having come from an import. The hospital hasn't been there for 20 years. The new building is several kilometers away. Not just bad, full on dangerous if someone actually believed the data in OSM and tried to find help when they were hurt. :-( It has made me more interested in this whole import process, if just for the reason of looking at what Canvec has to say about areas I know well. Also, I haven't the time to walk the world and map it all, and with the current price of gas, I sure can't afford to drive it. ;-) Ian ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Canadian imports: good or bad?
On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 8:36 PM, Steve Singer wrote: > I think the question posed in the subject 'good or bad' is the wrong one. Is > there a way we can have our cake and eat it too? [ ... ] I hope so. I like cake. :-) > When I was doing license replacement for roads I found it easier/faster to > just trace over the GeoBase WMS layer(I don't consider that 'importing'). Neither do I. More like "referring to an external resource". Even if we include the tracing you describe as importing, it would be very hard to describe it as a "bulk" import. The combination of geoBase WMS and nice aerial imagery is wonderful. > When I had to replace some lakes I found copy/pasting the features from the > Canvec .OSM files produced a much better result (importing?). Perhaps "importing" but not the "bulk importing" I intended in my original question. Steve listed these: We have tried 95% automated bulk imports (ie the road imports I did in Alberta and Ontario) We have had mappers import an entire Canvec tile at once via JOSM We have had mappers import a feature at a time in a single canvec (or and other sources) tile I think each of those is a "bulk import" operation. Let's carry on with the discussion. :-) ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Canadian imports: good or bad?
On 12-04-15 19:32 , kli...@gmail.com wrote: > > To pick some nits: OSM is not a map, but a database that people can use > to create maps (and other things). True enough - a map is a GIS that crawled onto a page and died. cheers, Stewart ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Canadian imports: good or bad?
On Sun, 15 Apr 2012, Andrew Allison wrote: From what I see there are some conflicting arguments here. I think the question posed in the subject 'good or bad' is the wrong one. Is there a way we can have our cake and eat it too? Can we get most of the benefits from all of your below arguments? What conclusions can the Canadian community learn from our import experience during the past 3 years?. We have tried 95% automated bulk imports (ie the road imports I did in Alberta and Ontario) We have had mappers import an entire Canvec tile at once via JOSM We have had mappers import a feature at a time in a single canvec (or and other sources) tile I remain unconvinced that the regions in Canada that have had imports have had their local mapper communities harmed by these imports. I don't see the regions (in Canada) that have had fewer imports or delayed imports having better local community development than places (in Canada) that have had extensive importing. I also feel that not of all data sources are equal. Even within Canvec some layers are excellent (ie roads and lakes in most of the country) while others are often so out of date it isn't worth the time to import (ie buildings in much of Southern Ontario) When I was doing license replacement for roads I found it easier/faster to just trace over the GeoBase WMS layer(I don't consider that 'importing'). When I had to replace some lakes I found copy/pasting the features from the Canvec .OSM files produced a much better result (importing?). Steve 1 Building a community of mappers to add features to the map. Ideally local. 2 Canada is a huge country. I doubt that there are that many people willing to commit to mapping every nook. I'm sure the amount of No Trespassing signs itself would prevent it. 3 OSM is promoting itself as a "competitor" to google. 4 I would suspect most mappers are not aware of the license change coming and the resulting impact. Given the size of Canada, and the few mappers we have. I my self could not and probably would not have never walked / driven on every road, trail, river, lake forest etc without some else doing an import first which I myself used a base to improve OSM. I don't see any possible way to have a map without an import to use as a base. To counter my own points, Yes, you will find some people who see a great white spot as a challenge. But looking at the changes made locally I would think most people would rather tweak an existing road or park. Andrew ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Canadian imports: good or bad?
On Apr 15, 2012, at 4:45 PM, "Pierre Béland" wrote: > Let start from the beginning. What is the objective of OSM? > A collaborative map of the world. Not a patchwork. We need a map with > sufficient quality to support various projects. To pick some nits: OSM is not a map, but a database that people can use to create maps (and other things). > > And there are a lot of dynamic projects around like > http://hiking.lonvia.de/en/ and http://hikebikemap.de/. > > See this nice nordic ski map derived from OSM : > http://www.pistes-nordiques.org/ > It is more developped in Europe. So Zoom-in in this area to see trails in > detail. And then, pass the mouse over trails. An Elevation Profile of the > trail will be proposed. Full ACK. I am currently on a bike trip from Montreal to Toronto. For that I generated my own bike specific maps for use on my Garmin GPS. And that would not have been possible without either the Canvec import (for most of the basic road data) nor without all the work that people have put into surveying, entering, editing all the bike-specific stuff to the database. So yay imports, yay users! Let's just make sure that the imports are done well (case in point : buildings from Canvec in Montreal are generally awful) Harald.___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Canadian imports: good or bad?
> From: Richard Weait [mailto:rich...@weait.com] > Subject: [Talk-ca] Canadian imports: good or bad? > > Dear All, > > Let's talk about it again. How do we feel about the bulk copying of > information from a permitted source into OpenStreetMap in Canada? > > To be clear, I'm not suggesting that we discuss whether external data > sources are good or not. External data sources are good. I'm > suggesting that we review how we best make use of those external > sources. Although CanVec is unquestionably a useful data source for aiding with mapping, I question dumping in data that will never get looked at or improved by a mapper which is what is happening in widespread areas. This is not about using CanVec in conjunction with a survey to speed mapping, this is about using CanVec where you are unfamiliar with the area and no one will ever survey. While we're on the subject of CanVec, I think the documentation needs some work. People are importing CanVec without giving it a detailed look, trusting it's representation to be correct. It is not enough to just tie in the CanVec data with existing data. The CanVec data in some areas is wrong (e.g. coastlines in CanVec 8) and cannot be imported as is. Also you need to be aware of the age of some of the data sources. In parts of BC you should not import the streams from CanVec without verification with imagery. The names are generally alright, but many of the streams have dried up or been paved over in the last 30 years. Similarly, no one should be importing the buildings from CanVec in BC. They're wrong more far more often than they're right. ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Canadian imports: good or bad?
Let start from the beginning. What is the objective of OSM? A collaborative map of the world. Not a patchwork. We need a map with sufficient quality to support various projects. And there are a lot of dynamic projects around like http://hiking.lonvia.de/en/ and http://hikebikemap.de/. See this nice nordic ski map derived from OSM : http://www.pistes-nordiques.org/ It is more developped in Europe. So Zoom-in in this area to see trails in detail. And then, pass the mouse over trails. An Elevation Profile of the trail will be proposed. A lot of similar projects are susceptible to emerge in various sectors : sport, food, local communities, organic farms, artisanal cheese makers, local producers, etc. What do they need from us? How we deliver? We surely have to tag and structure various information related to such activities. OSM is a vast project interrelated with communities, Open source developpers. The derived products of OSM need good quality map as baselayer and Bulk imports should surely be part of the portrait. Pierre De : Richard Weait Date/heure : 2012-04-15 11:09:23 A : Talk-CA OpenStreetMap Cc : Sujet : [Talk-ca] Canadian imports: good or bad? Dear All, Let's talk about it again. How do we feel about the bulk copying of information from a permitted source into OpenStreetMap in Canada? To be clear, I'm not suggesting that we discuss whether external data sources are good or not. External data sources are good. I'm suggesting that we review how we best make use of those external sources. You go first. :-) Best regards, Richard ___ 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] Canadian imports: good or bad?g
I just sent a message to Winnipeg Transit asking for a shapefile with every (well, almost all) addresses in Winnipeg. Given their open data policies, I think I have a good chance. The data will be better than StatsCan addresses and will allow us to make the existing map more accurate. I see OSM as providing a high quality product, imports allow us to focus on the features that make OSM unique. See http://osm.org/go/WtzVpPV, where I traced logging roads from Bing imagery, but got the base network from Canvec. In a week I'll be heading to a small village in Southern Manitoba. If it weren't for Canvec I would have to walk every street with a GPS while taking extensive notes, and then put everything together in JOSM. But Canvec data means that I can concentrate on working and not feel guilty about not mapping, but still add many features not collected by Google. Sam Dyck ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Canadian imports: good or bad?
I think you have to start with the requirements and on a project the size of OpenStreetMap there are many people involved each of which have their own set of requirements. End users would like the information they require to exist, be reliable and accurate. Many people who own a GPS and a bike like to map as a hobby so imports are not important to them. Specialist groups such as those with an interest in trees like to be able to tag these items. Are we concerned about people who will use them maps? Or do we accept that there are other alternatives based on CANVEC data that meet their requirements, ie is OpenStreetMap relevant to them? One project I'm looking at combines OSM with open bus stop data that is not licensed in a way that can be used for OSM, it could just as easily be overlaid on CANVEC data. I think the big challenge is data quality, in Ottawa I found over 100 roads with the incorrect name before I cleaned it up. So step one is define the requirements. Cheerio John On 15 April 2012 11:09, Richard Weait wrote: > Dear All, > > Let's talk about it again. How do we feel about the bulk copying of > information from a permitted source into OpenStreetMap in Canada? > > To be clear, I'm not suggesting that we discuss whether external data > sources are good or not. External data sources are good. I'm > suggesting that we review how we best make use of those external > sources. > > You go first. :-) > > Best regards, > Richard > > ___ > 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] Canadian imports: good or bad?
Hello all, As a former resident of Saskatchewan, I vote for imports - done by a select few people who know how to do it well. I've been slowly bringing Moose Jaw on the map with help from Bing imagery, but I will never be able to accurately map all of the roads in Saskatchewan. There are over 200,000 km of roads. Most are un-mapped in OSM and will likely remain that way - not to mention the thousands of lakes in Northern Saskatchewan that aren't there. I would much rather update a map, then try to trace the entire country. Cheers, Teresa (on a different note, I now live in Germany, where imports aren't even spoken of. Lots of stuff left to map here though, even with a really active community.) On 04/15/2012 07:57 PM, Daniel Begin wrote: Bonjour, I know that I'm not totally unbiased !-) but as it is an important question, I'll add my two cents as OSM contributor... Bulk import - Canvec for instance - is helpful to fill white areas on OSM map. Not doing twice what is already available and focus on updating, or adding features, that are not available from other sources. Using it as a canvas to add upon. I have fun updating hydrography, vegetation, parks, roads and land uses in Sherbrooke, Sept-Îles and Rimouski. I would not have done the map from scratch. Best regards, Daniel -Original Message- From: Andrew Allison [mailto:andrew.alli...@teksavvy.com] Sent: April-15-12 12:19 To: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Canadian imports: good or bad? On Sun, 2012-04-15 at 11:09 -0400, Richard Weait wrote: Dear All, Let's talk about it again. How do we feel about the bulk copying of information from a permitted source into OpenStreetMap in Canada? To be clear, I'm not suggesting that we discuss whether external data sources are good or not. External data sources are good. I'm suggesting that we review how we best make use of those external sources. You go first. :-) Best regards, Richard ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca From what I see there are some conflicting arguments here. 1 Building a community of mappers to add features to the map. Ideally local. 2 Canada is a huge country. I doubt that there are that many people willing to commit to mapping every nook. I'm sure the amount of No Trespassing signs itself would prevent it. 3 OSM is promoting itself as a "competitor" to google. 4 I would suspect most mappers are not aware of the license change coming and the resulting impact. Given the size of Canada, and the few mappers we have. I my self could not and probably would not have never walked / driven on every road, trail, river, lake forest etc without some else doing an import first which I myself used a base to improve OSM. I don't see any possible way to have a map without an import to use as a base. To counter my own points, Yes, you will find some people who see a great white spot as a challenge. But looking at the changes made locally I would think most people would rather tweak an existing road or park. Andrew ___ 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] Canadian imports: good or bad?
On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 9:38 AM, Stewart C. Russell wrote: > Thanks to all who have provided imports. Keep it up. We have a MAP now! In some areas... there are still vast expanses with little to no information available in OSM. Take this area in Saskatchewan for example: http://osm.org/go/Wk7dy_x-- A pristine area, not sullied by those nasty imports, which chase away the avid OSM enthusiast looking for pristine areas of blank canvas upon which to tag their cartographic masterpiece. CanVec data is available in this area, but no one has taken up the challenge of manually verifying and vetting the process of moving data from CanVec to the OSM database. As Andrew pointed out, it is far less daunting to go in and tweak a road, add more data points to a shore line, or add a POI to an existing area than it is to be faced with an absolutely blank screen. Writer's block morphs into Cartographer's Terror. -- James VE6SRV ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Canadian imports: good or bad?
Bonjour, I know that I'm not totally unbiased !-) but as it is an important question, I'll add my two cents as OSM contributor... Bulk import - Canvec for instance - is helpful to fill white areas on OSM map. Not doing twice what is already available and focus on updating, or adding features, that are not available from other sources. Using it as a canvas to add upon. I have fun updating hydrography, vegetation, parks, roads and land uses in Sherbrooke, Sept-Îles and Rimouski. I would not have done the map from scratch. Best regards, Daniel -Original Message- From: Andrew Allison [mailto:andrew.alli...@teksavvy.com] Sent: April-15-12 12:19 To: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Canadian imports: good or bad? On Sun, 2012-04-15 at 11:09 -0400, Richard Weait wrote: > Dear All, > > Let's talk about it again. How do we feel about the bulk copying of > information from a permitted source into OpenStreetMap in Canada? > > To be clear, I'm not suggesting that we discuss whether external data > sources are good or not. External data sources are good. I'm > suggesting that we review how we best make use of those external > sources. > > You go first. :-) > > Best regards, > Richard > > ___ > Talk-ca mailing list > Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca >From what I see there are some conflicting arguments here. 1 Building a community of mappers to add features to the map. Ideally local. 2 Canada is a huge country. I doubt that there are that many people willing to commit to mapping every nook. I'm sure the amount of No Trespassing signs itself would prevent it. 3 OSM is promoting itself as a "competitor" to google. 4 I would suspect most mappers are not aware of the license change coming and the resulting impact. Given the size of Canada, and the few mappers we have. I my self could not and probably would not have never walked / driven on every road, trail, river, lake forest etc without some else doing an import first which I myself used a base to improve OSM. I don't see any possible way to have a map without an import to use as a base. To counter my own points, Yes, you will find some people who see a great white spot as a challenge. But looking at the changes made locally I would think most people would rather tweak an existing road or park. Andrew ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Canadian imports: good or bad?
On Sun, 2012-04-15 at 11:09 -0400, Richard Weait wrote: > Dear All, > > Let's talk about it again. How do we feel about the bulk copying of > information from a permitted source into OpenStreetMap in Canada? > > To be clear, I'm not suggesting that we discuss whether external data > sources are good or not. External data sources are good. I'm > suggesting that we review how we best make use of those external > sources. > > You go first. :-) > > Best regards, > Richard > > ___ > Talk-ca mailing list > Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca From what I see there are some conflicting arguments here. 1 Building a community of mappers to add features to the map. Ideally local. 2 Canada is a huge country. I doubt that there are that many people willing to commit to mapping every nook. I'm sure the amount of No Trespassing signs itself would prevent it. 3 OSM is promoting itself as a "competitor" to google. 4 I would suspect most mappers are not aware of the license change coming and the resulting impact. Given the size of Canada, and the few mappers we have. I my self could not and probably would not have never walked / driven on every road, trail, river, lake forest etc without some else doing an import first which I myself used a base to improve OSM. I don't see any possible way to have a map without an import to use as a base. To counter my own points, Yes, you will find some people who see a great white spot as a challenge. But looking at the changes made locally I would think most people would rather tweak an existing road or park. Andrew signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Canadian imports: good or bad?
On 2012-04-15, at 11:09 AM, Richard Weait wrote: > Let's talk about it again. How do we feel about the bulk copying of > information from a permitted source into OpenStreetMap in Canada? > > To be clear, I'm not suggesting that we discuss whether external data > sources are good or not. External data sources are good. I'm > suggesting that we review how we best make use of those external > sources. > Generally, I don't see why we shouldn't avail ourselves of such information. As Stewart pointed put, we're a huge sparsely-populated country. However, there needs to be a system to help avoid conflicting with similar/identical data being collected by local mappers. ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Canadian imports: good or bad?
On 12-04-15 11:09 , Richard Weait wrote: > Dear All, > > Let's talk about it again. How do we feel about the bulk copying of > information from a permitted source into OpenStreetMap in Canada? Essential, required, epic and amazing. We're a huge sparsely-populated country. It would be impossible to maintain anything other that a few isolated dots across the country without imports. More! Now! Always! Yes!! Thanks to all who have provided imports. Keep it up. We have a MAP now! cheers, Stewart ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
[Talk-ca] Canadian imports: good or bad?
Dear All, Let's talk about it again. How do we feel about the bulk copying of information from a permitted source into OpenStreetMap in Canada? To be clear, I'm not suggesting that we discuss whether external data sources are good or not. External data sources are good. I'm suggesting that we review how we best make use of those external sources. You go first. :-) Best regards, Richard ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
