Re: [Talk-ca] Canvec.osm sample files are ready
Any possibility of getting 041P16 (Orangeville) area as a sample. It's where I live. Figure local knowledge would be a good way to verify the area too ;-) Mikey ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Canvec.osm sample files are ready
Hi Mikey, Orangeville city area (040P16) will be include in samples later today :-) For others, I propose you look at existing sample. There is now enough sample to have an idea at the product definition. Daniel -Original Message- From: talk-ca-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:talk-ca-boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of G. Michael Carter Sent: 2 juin 2010 07:09 To: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Canvec.osm sample files are ready Any possibility of getting 041P16 (Orangeville) area as a sample. It's where I live. Figure local knowledge would be a good way to verify the area too ;-) Mikey ___ 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] Canvec.osm sample files are ready
Hi Daniel, First of all, WOW, great job. I could never get my address interpolation ways to look that nice doing them manually!! I have a few questions about the Address Interpolation ways in the Halifax sample: 1. I didn't notice any addr:housenumber tags on the start or end nodes of any of the interpolation ways. Is the import of this data just not complete yet? 2. Based on the start/end house numbers, you should set addr:interpolation to even or odd. Sorry if I totally missed an explanation of this in a previous message. Tyler ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Canvec.osm sample files are ready
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 9:58 AM, Tyler Gunn ty...@egunn.com wrote: Hi Daniel, First of all, WOW, great job. I could never get my address interpolation ways to look that nice doing them manually!! I have a few questions about the Address Interpolation ways in the Halifax sample: 1. I didn't notice any addr:housenumber tags on the start or end nodes of any of the interpolation ways. Is the import of this data just not complete yet? 2. Based on the start/end house numbers, you should set addr:interpolation to even or odd. Sorry if I totally missed an explanation of this in a previous message. The addr: stuff I saw in Peterborough-that-looked-like-Halifax, had proper addr:housenumber on the end nodes. Very nice. ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Canvec.osm sample files are ready
The addr: stuff I saw in Peterborough-that-looked-like-Halifax, had proper addr:housenumber on the end nodes. Very nice. I noticed that too. My second comment about the addr:interpolation even/odd thing still applies though. I agree, those interpolation ways look great! So much better than the hand-made ones I tried. Tyler -- Tyler Gunn ty...@egunn.com ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Canvec.osm sample files are ready
Hi, On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 12:38 PM, Bégin, Daniel daniel.be...@rncan-nrcan.gc.ca wrote: Bonjour Richard - et les autres cartographes d'Openstreetmap First, sample files have been modified ... - Peterborough-that-looked-like-Halifax has been replaced !-) - addr:interpolation tag value=yes is replaced by odd or even - Missing names on some dual carriageways have been corrected - 040P16 - Orangeville city area, ON has been added Now, general/specific comments that should answer what you have found in Peterborough-that-looked-like-Halifax sample... - Traveling direction is not taken into account in GeoBase/Canvec. Oneways will have to be edited to indicate proper direction over the whole country. It does not affect addressing interpolation from point A to point B. - Simplified junction to a single node seems to be a problem with Halifax GeoBase/Canvec data. The province will be notified. We should not find something like that any where else. - Turning circle marked fixme=feature may not exist. The feature receives pros and cons. More comments that would help me to choose? Having this feature, even in those cases where the road is a flat dead-end, does help the map user identify that the map is not incomplete there is no missing road segment.Sometimes we have these in residential areas where a road could possably connect to a major free-way. So indicating that there is a 'end-stop' in the road helps the map users. It is easy todo a search for 'fixme' when looking at an area see what can be worked on, as local are mappers will be able to provide more details ie. fences / patches of grass / wooded_area etc. So for turning_circle, i'd vote to keep it as it is, with the note for internal mappers. * I'll also add that into the wiki chart as a discussion note. We can include other pros/cons about this so it is documented. - Junction of Bedford-Lady Hammond-Windsor Street respects the GeoBase and Canvec content! - Overlapping features. It reflects the fact that there is no more complete map update program at federal level. The updated content is provided through the GeoBase initiative. As buildings are not a GeoBase layer, they have not been updated for a while. That is where Osm mapper could eventually make a difference. Basically, using the Toporama as a basemap while working preference to the local area mapper dropping the data in, can decide what todo. Just because the data is available, does not mean it all needs to be imported. Alot of work has gone into Importing the geobase NRN GeoBase NHN CanVec features tracing osm of course, 'regular' mapping already. So in some areas, there has been significant on-the-ground changes. So there will be alot of fine-tuning. These wonderful address:interpolation ways will need to be manually adjusted, especially at complex intersections. Remember that we also have WMS layers shp files from Ontario directly, these shp files can be converted and used to compare with what exists. Ontario has an incredible amount of building area's (for example) all of which can be used in a WMS layer (if it is not already provided by MNR, this can be provided made externally) Cheers, Sam Cheers, Daniel ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Canvec.osm sample files are ready
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 11:03 PM, Bégin, Daniel daniel.be...@rncan-nrcan.gc.ca wrote: Bonsoir tout le monde! [ ... ] I have added Halifax and Peterborough. I also replace Waterton Park area with a new file that includes addressing. These are sample, not the final product. I am waiting on comments from the community to finish the Canvec conversion programs and start conversion process. I would like to know if the Karlsruhe schema is Ok. It sometime needs editing around access ramps buildings. Only local mappers can do that. Does the distance between adjacent interpolation lines is Ok? - where addresses show up. Dear Daniel, I'm having a first look at 031D08_Sample.osm Please excuse my ignorance of local details. Overall the presentation of the data looks very good. In specific the implementation of Karslruhe addressing schema geometry looks wonderful. I see a few things that could be improved: 0) This file marked 031D08 appears to be Halifax. I was expecting Peterborough. 1) Junction of highway 111 and highway 118 a) Both are dual carriageways. Both show both carriageways traveling in the same direction. - similar problems appear on other divided highways. b) The motorway_links have directional trouble too. See the motorway_link ways at the north end of the map. c) carriageways that cross with a bridge often have a two nodes near the overlap. These nodes are within ~25cm of each other but are not co-located. They do not appear to mark a change in tagging. They do not appear to be required by geometry. They are confusing, because d) some bridges share a node with the road below creating an incorrect junction. 2) Junction of Highway 111 and Victoria Road Has 4 identical issues a) through d) as 1) above. a) carriageways are same direction rather than opposite directions. b) some ramps are the wrong direction. c) 3 of four cross overs have double nodes. d) the fourth cross over is joined by a node. 3) Inspector Court a) two buildings are drawn overlapping the road. It is possible that either the buildings or the road has changed. Other layers show similar problems in other areas. For example see Drysdale Road overlapping natural=wood. 4) North West Arm Drive and Osborne Street a) The divided road shows both carriageways traveling in the same direction. 5) Connaught Avenue - divided residential road a) both carriageways are drawn in the same direction b) one carriageway is missing the name=Connaught Avenue c) junctions are drawn simplified to a single node. - Can that angle be changed? d) Karslruhe address schema ways use interpolation=yes. I was expecting to see interpolation=even/odd 6) Junction of Bedford Highway, Lady Hammond Road and Windsor Street with unnamed secondary link a) simplified junction at a single node. Can Bedford and Lady Hammond use same narrow angle used by Windsor Street? b) Dual carriageway missing name on one carriageway c) dual carriageway of mis-matched road types? Secondary and residential? d) dual carriageways with same direction on both carriageways. 7) Cannon Terrace - A gated community. Nice touch! a) the turning circle marked fixme=feature may not exist. Probably best to drop the feature if we have no data for it. Local mappers can add them where they exist. Again, overall I think the data looks really good. Just a few things to sort out. Let me know when I should look again. Best regards, Richard ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
