Re: [Talk-ca] Forests/Land Use, was: Canvec reverts
Hi Frederik,
I prefer to discuss with the community and find solutions. And we have to
understand what is the reality of certain countries, try to help the
contributors and avoid ultimatums, more or less intimidation ("I dont bother
what you did, I will press the button and erase everything"). We should not
encourage such inflammatory behaviors.
I would like that contributors from other countries do not come as preachers
of orthodoxy with no flexibility but come with a constructive spirit and
propose ways to respond to the challenge of mapping such huge areas while
improving the quality of the data.
See a comparison map of Germany with north of Quebec
http://thetruesize.com/#?borders=1~!MTUyMzYyMTg.MTM3MDg4NTc*MTQwOTk4NTg(ODE3MTYzNg~!DE*NTE2Nzg1Ng.MTMwNDIzOTY)MA
Germany is about half the size of north of Quebec where 35 000 people live in
isolated habitats. Germany is probably 10 to 20 times smaller then northern
areas of Canada. I dont know the official population size but probably in the
range 250,000 - 500,000 people.
The map, the tools, the procedures to enhance the map should not be only
thought for dense urbanised areas in Europe or southern parts of Canada, USA,
etc.
I would say that you propose a Police intimidating contributors with "If we
are not satisfied of the quality of your work - and we dont want to listen to
the canadian community - we will press the button and destruct everything."
Please, we should keep Star Wars games spirit outside of OSM and work with more
harmony and respect.
If people have finished developping the map in their country, and look for
challenges, they should do it with a positive behavior that respect OSM
volonteers. If we can develop tools to spy canadian contributors changesets and
diligently revert / destroy their efforts, we should surely be able to produce
more productive tools to help this community and other similar communities to
enhance the map.
Personnaly, I think that we have to be careful if we want to develop
communities and build a better map to avoid inflammatory language and
destructive actions. Community engagement this requires to respect volunteers,
to give them the feeling that they are part of a community, that we are
listening to them, that we are ready to support them.
regard
Pierre
De : Frederik Ramm
À : talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
Envoyé le : vendredi 2 Septembre 2016 16h02
Objet : Re: [Talk-ca] Forests/Land Use, was: Canvec reverts
Hi,
On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 11:27 AM, Adam Martin wrote:
> That is the key here. Deleting information without replacing it with
> something more accurate is inherently destructive. There must be
> some thought as to what will be put back or one is essentially
> ripping the map up simply because you don't like how something looks
> or how it closely it follows a given rule.
On a general note, edits *have* been reverted in the past for the simple
reason of not following a given rule, without looking at whether the
edit improved the visuals or not.
For "normal mappers", OSM ususally encourages them to map what they can
or know - no need to do it perfectly. Even a street drawn from memory
("I know I took a left here and then popped out onto XY road later, so
let me pencil in that road...) is ok for manual mapping.
For imports, we expect a certain minimum quality and if the importer
cannot produce that then we ask them to simply hold off the import until
they (or someone else) can.
The reason for the difference in approaches is that a productive
importer can import data in one day that takes several person-years to
fix and that will even have a detrimental effect on manual mapping of
other features (what Paul Ramsey writes further down-thread), whereas
imperfect data contributed by normal mappers comes at a rate where it is
realistic to assume that other normal mappers can fix it.
Data imports can have a negative effect on map quality (not even talking
of community engagement). "It looks nice on the map" can be a
treacherous criterion; beneath the surfaceit can still be rubbish, and
rubbish should not be imported into OSM even if it looks nice.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
___
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] Forests/Land Use, was: Canvec reverts
Hi,
On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 11:27 AM, Adam Martin wrote:
> That is the key here. Deleting information without replacing it with
> something more accurate is inherently destructive. There must be
> some thought as to what will be put back or one is essentially
> ripping the map up simply because you don't like how something looks
> or how it closely it follows a given rule.
On a general note, edits *have* been reverted in the past for the simple
reason of not following a given rule, without looking at whether the
edit improved the visuals or not.
For "normal mappers", OSM ususally encourages them to map what they can
or know - no need to do it perfectly. Even a street drawn from memory
("I know I took a left here and then popped out onto XY road later, so
let me pencil in that road...) is ok for manual mapping.
For imports, we expect a certain minimum quality and if the importer
cannot produce that then we ask them to simply hold off the import until
they (or someone else) can.
The reason for the difference in approaches is that a productive
importer can import data in one day that takes several person-years to
fix and that will even have a detrimental effect on manual mapping of
other features (what Paul Ramsey writes further down-thread), whereas
imperfect data contributed by normal mappers comes at a rate where it is
realistic to assume that other normal mappers can fix it.
Data imports can have a negative effect on map quality (not even talking
of community engagement). "It looks nice on the map" can be a
treacherous criterion; beneath the surfaceit can still be rubbish, and
rubbish should not be imported into OSM even if it looks nice.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Forests/Land Use, was: Canvec reverts
On 9/1/2016 1:22 PM, Paul Ramsey wrote: I'm not sure I agree. "Better than nothing" I guess is the principle, but when what is there (not nothing) gets in the way of improving other features, then it's not better than nothing. And what if what's there is, from an information point of view, basically nothing? Like the forests polygons that basically do nothing to delineate where forests actually are (or residential polygons with same issue?) "Go map all forests" is not actionable. Hell, even "clean up all forests in just the area you care about" isn't. There's too much. So instead, I leave demonstrably wrong "forests" in place. In your example there I would have no issues with deleting that "forest". Its boundaries do not agree with the boundaries of the real forest, and the only reason there happens to really be forest in most of it is because it's in a part of BC where that is true *everywhere*. I've cleaned up bad CanVec data like that, and my first step would be to delete it and start from scratch, so it's not like you are causing any additional effort if someone decides to come along and map it properly. ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Forests/Land Use, was: Canvec reverts
On 9/1/2016 8:17 AM, Paul Ramsey wrote: I'm "glad" to see someone else w/ this issue. It's glancingly related to the canvec import issue, since the land use polygons are a source of some of the issues the reverter is complaining about (malformed multipolygons / boundary overlaps). In my own work in my old home town of Prince George, I've constantly wanted to just plain delete the "urban area" land use polygon (which doesn't seem to correspond in any way to the actual urban area of the present) and the forest polygons (which have the same problem). I get frequent complaints about CanVec forest data in OSM from people who would like to use OSM data but don't. It is only usable as a low resolution landcover layer (z4-z10 or so) and if someone wanted that, there are better data sources they can use. ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Forests/Land Use, was: Canvec reverts
On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 11:27 AM, Adam Martin wrote: > That is the key here. Deleting information without replacing it with > something more accurate is inherently destructive. There must be some > thought as to what will be put back or one is essentially ripping the map > up simply because you don't like how something looks or how it closely it > follows a given rule. > I'm not sure I agree. "Better than nothing" I guess is the principle, but when what is there (not nothing) gets in the way of improving other features, then it's not better than nothing. And what if what's there is, from an information point of view, basically nothing? Like the forests polygons that basically do nothing to delineate where forests actually are (or residential polygons with same issue?) "Go map all forests" is not actionable. Hell, even "clean up all forests in just the area you care about" isn't. There's too much. So instead, I leave demonstrably wrong "forests" in place. [image: Inline image 1] I can't even salve my conscience that they at least improve the rendering a little at an aesthetic (if not informational) level, since they were partially loaded in the region, and actually make it look worse. [image: Inline image 2] Anyways, I stick to my general feeling (un-acted upon) that more is not better, and the map would be easier to work with without the big, unhelpful, land cover polygons. P. > That would be like finding parking aisles tagged as drive throughs and > deleting them as incorrect, instead of simply correcting the tags. > > On Sep 1, 2016 3:30 PM, "john whelan" wrote: > >> And as someone who has deleted quite a few things in OSM I would agree >> with that statement. When I didn't have a better replacement available >> then I prefer not to delete unless I have done a ground level inspection >> and there really isn't anything there. >> >> I think my favourite was a mapper who was demonstrating 3D software with >> OSM. They dropped in a group of multiple level buildings into an area I >> was mapping in Africa. They didn't consider what they did was wrong, it >> was only Africa. >> >> Cheerio John >> >> On 1 Sep 2016 1:26 pm, "Begin Daniel" wrote: >> >>> *P: OSM is very much an "add only" project, since the social >>> consequences of incorrectly deleting things seem so high.* >>> >>> >>> >>> What I do perceive in the current thread is that deleting something not >>> perfect without replacing it with something better hurts, not that it is >>> not acceptable to delete something. >>> >>> >>> >>> Daniel >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:* Paul Ramsey [mailto:pram...@cleverelephant.ca] >>> *Sent:* Thursday, 1 September, 2016 13:05 >>> *To:* Begin Daniel >>> *Cc:* Talk-CA OpenStreetMap >>> *Subject:* Re: [Talk-ca] Forests/Land Use, was: Canvec reverts >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 8:49 AM, Begin Daniel wrote: >>> >>> What is very cool with OSM is that you can edit the data. Urban polygon >>> is wrong? Modify it! The definition is obscure in the Wiki? Change it! But >>> yes, the learning curve is often steep, and you may need to discuss with >>> someone else… >>> >>> >>> >>> "Just fix it" is not quite the answer. The point the original poster >>> made, which I concur with, is that the very existence of these shapes makes >>> working with the "important" data difficult. In terms of forest and land >>> use polygons, every vertex I move there is a vertex I'm not going to move >>> on something "important". (And the vertex density of the forests/land use >>> are another reason that working around/with them is painful and >>> energy-sapping.) >>> >>> >>> >>> As discussed in the other thread, the shear volume of Canada means I'm >>> never in 1M years going to "fix" the forests. As it stands, I mostly ignore >>> them. Too many vertexes to move, for too little net benefit, so there's >>> forests running through the new subdivisions of Prince George. At least the >>> roads are there and hopefully correctly named now. >>> >>> >>> >>> (I would, however, love to just delete the urban "land use" polygons, >>> but who know if that's "allowed" or not. Absent a strong personality like >>> the person who caused this t
Re: [Talk-ca] Forests/Land Use, was: Canvec reverts
That is the key here. Deleting information without replacing it with something more accurate is inherently destructive. There must be some thought as to what will be put back or one is essentially ripping the map up simply because you don't like how something looks or how it closely it follows a given rule. That would be like finding parking aisles tagged as drive throughs and deleting them as incorrect, instead of simply correcting the tags. On Sep 1, 2016 3:30 PM, "john whelan" wrote: > And as someone who has deleted quite a few things in OSM I would agree > with that statement. When I didn't have a better replacement available > then I prefer not to delete unless I have done a ground level inspection > and there really isn't anything there. > > I think my favourite was a mapper who was demonstrating 3D software with > OSM. They dropped in a group of multiple level buildings into an area I > was mapping in Africa. They didn't consider what they did was wrong, it > was only Africa. > > Cheerio John > > On 1 Sep 2016 1:26 pm, "Begin Daniel" wrote: > >> *P: OSM is very much an "add only" project, since the social consequences >> of incorrectly deleting things seem so high.* >> >> >> >> What I do perceive in the current thread is that deleting something not >> perfect without replacing it with something better hurts, not that it is >> not acceptable to delete something. >> >> >> >> Daniel >> >> >> >> *From:* Paul Ramsey [mailto:pram...@cleverelephant.ca] >> *Sent:* Thursday, 1 September, 2016 13:05 >> *To:* Begin Daniel >> *Cc:* Talk-CA OpenStreetMap >> *Subject:* Re: [Talk-ca] Forests/Land Use, was: Canvec reverts >> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 8:49 AM, Begin Daniel wrote: >> >> What is very cool with OSM is that you can edit the data. Urban polygon >> is wrong? Modify it! The definition is obscure in the Wiki? Change it! But >> yes, the learning curve is often steep, and you may need to discuss with >> someone else… >> >> >> >> "Just fix it" is not quite the answer. The point the original poster >> made, which I concur with, is that the very existence of these shapes makes >> working with the "important" data difficult. In terms of forest and land >> use polygons, every vertex I move there is a vertex I'm not going to move >> on something "important". (And the vertex density of the forests/land use >> are another reason that working around/with them is painful and >> energy-sapping.) >> >> >> >> As discussed in the other thread, the shear volume of Canada means I'm >> never in 1M years going to "fix" the forests. As it stands, I mostly ignore >> them. Too many vertexes to move, for too little net benefit, so there's >> forests running through the new subdivisions of Prince George. At least the >> roads are there and hopefully correctly named now. >> >> >> >> (I would, however, love to just delete the urban "land use" polygons, >> but who know if that's "allowed" or not. Absent a strong personality like >> the person who caused this thread, it seems like OSM is very much an "add >> only" project, since the social consequences of incorrectly deleting things >> seem so high. Nobody wants to be "that guy".) >> >> >> >> ATB, >> >> >> P >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> *From:* Paul Ramsey [mailto:pram...@cleverelephant.ca] >> *Sent:* Thursday, 1 September, 2016 11:17 >> *To:* Talk-CA OpenStreetMap >> *Subject:* [Talk-ca] Forests/Land Use, was: Canvec reverts >> >> >> >> I'm "glad" to see someone else w/ this issue. It's glancingly related to >> the canvec import issue, since the land use polygons are a source of some >> of the issues the reverter is complaining about (malformed multipolygons / >> boundary overlaps). >> >> >> >> In my own work in my old home town of Prince George, I've constantly >> wanted to just plain delete the "urban area" land use polygon (which >> doesn't seem to correspond in any way to the actual urban area of the >> present) and the forest polygons (which have the same problem). >> >> >> >> Unlike buildings and roads and water, land use is pretty sloppy: where >> does the "urban area" end? Is this a "forest" or just a bunch of trees? >> Since anyone making a real mu
Re: [Talk-ca] Forests/Land Use, was: Canvec reverts
And as someone who has deleted quite a few things in OSM I would agree with that statement. When I didn't have a better replacement available then I prefer not to delete unless I have done a ground level inspection and there really isn't anything there. I think my favourite was a mapper who was demonstrating 3D software with OSM. They dropped in a group of multiple level buildings into an area I was mapping in Africa. They didn't consider what they did was wrong, it was only Africa. Cheerio John On 1 Sep 2016 1:26 pm, "Begin Daniel" wrote: > *P: OSM is very much an "add only" project, since the social consequences > of incorrectly deleting things seem so high.* > > > > What I do perceive in the current thread is that deleting something not > perfect without replacing it with something better hurts, not that it is > not acceptable to delete something. > > > > Daniel > > > > *From:* Paul Ramsey [mailto:pram...@cleverelephant.ca] > *Sent:* Thursday, 1 September, 2016 13:05 > *To:* Begin Daniel > *Cc:* Talk-CA OpenStreetMap > *Subject:* Re: [Talk-ca] Forests/Land Use, was: Canvec reverts > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 8:49 AM, Begin Daniel wrote: > > What is very cool with OSM is that you can edit the data. Urban polygon is > wrong? Modify it! The definition is obscure in the Wiki? Change it! But > yes, the learning curve is often steep, and you may need to discuss with > someone else… > > > > "Just fix it" is not quite the answer. The point the original poster made, > which I concur with, is that the very existence of these shapes makes > working with the "important" data difficult. In terms of forest and land > use polygons, every vertex I move there is a vertex I'm not going to move > on something "important". (And the vertex density of the forests/land use > are another reason that working around/with them is painful and > energy-sapping.) > > > > As discussed in the other thread, the shear volume of Canada means I'm > never in 1M years going to "fix" the forests. As it stands, I mostly ignore > them. Too many vertexes to move, for too little net benefit, so there's > forests running through the new subdivisions of Prince George. At least the > roads are there and hopefully correctly named now. > > > > (I would, however, love to just delete the urban "land use" polygons, but > who know if that's "allowed" or not. Absent a strong personality like the > person who caused this thread, it seems like OSM is very much an "add only" > project, since the social consequences of incorrectly deleting things seem > so high. Nobody wants to be "that guy".) > > > > ATB, > > > P > > > > > > > > *From:* Paul Ramsey [mailto:pram...@cleverelephant.ca] > *Sent:* Thursday, 1 September, 2016 11:17 > *To:* Talk-CA OpenStreetMap > *Subject:* [Talk-ca] Forests/Land Use, was: Canvec reverts > > > > I'm "glad" to see someone else w/ this issue. It's glancingly related to > the canvec import issue, since the land use polygons are a source of some > of the issues the reverter is complaining about (malformed multipolygons / > boundary overlaps). > > > > In my own work in my old home town of Prince George, I've constantly > wanted to just plain delete the "urban area" land use polygon (which > doesn't seem to correspond in any way to the actual urban area of the > present) and the forest polygons (which have the same problem). > > > > Unlike buildings and roads and water, land use is pretty sloppy: where > does the "urban area" end? Is this a "forest" or just a bunch of trees? > Since anyone making a real multi-scale map will fine some other source of > land-use (like classified landsat) and since people trying to map at > high-res are finding the forests add little value and much impedance, why > don't we ... burn down all the forests (and the urban areas too)? > > > > P > > > > On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 6:54 AM, Loïc Haméon wrote: > > > On a final note, though, I certainly would approve of any effort to reduce > the size of the upload chunks and the assorted polygons. For new mappers > like me, those create daunting challenges when trying to make incremental > improvements to an area. Shortly after joining the OSM community I was back > in my home town of Saint-Félicien, in a fairly remote region that hasn't > had tons of local mapping done. Some of the inhabited areas I aimed to > improve were covered by Canvec forest multipolygons, and I ended up giving > up on them until I could get some more experience as I absolutely did not > understand what the hell was going on > > > > ___ > 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] Forests/Land Use, was: Canvec reverts
P: OSM is very much an "add only" project, since the social consequences of incorrectly deleting things seem so high. What I do perceive in the current thread is that deleting something not perfect without replacing it with something better hurts, not that it is not acceptable to delete something. Daniel From: Paul Ramsey [mailto:pram...@cleverelephant.ca] Sent: Thursday, 1 September, 2016 13:05 To: Begin Daniel Cc: Talk-CA OpenStreetMap Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Forests/Land Use, was: Canvec reverts On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 8:49 AM, Begin Daniel mailto:jfd...@hotmail.com>> wrote: What is very cool with OSM is that you can edit the data. Urban polygon is wrong? Modify it! The definition is obscure in the Wiki? Change it! But yes, the learning curve is often steep, and you may need to discuss with someone else… "Just fix it" is not quite the answer. The point the original poster made, which I concur with, is that the very existence of these shapes makes working with the "important" data difficult. In terms of forest and land use polygons, every vertex I move there is a vertex I'm not going to move on something "important". (And the vertex density of the forests/land use are another reason that working around/with them is painful and energy-sapping.) As discussed in the other thread, the shear volume of Canada means I'm never in 1M years going to "fix" the forests. As it stands, I mostly ignore them. Too many vertexes to move, for too little net benefit, so there's forests running through the new subdivisions of Prince George. At least the roads are there and hopefully correctly named now. (I would, however, love to just delete the urban "land use" polygons, but who know if that's "allowed" or not. Absent a strong personality like the person who caused this thread, it seems like OSM is very much an "add only" project, since the social consequences of incorrectly deleting things seem so high. Nobody wants to be "that guy".) ATB, P From: Paul Ramsey [mailto:pram...@cleverelephant.ca<mailto:pram...@cleverelephant.ca>] Sent: Thursday, 1 September, 2016 11:17 To: Talk-CA OpenStreetMap Subject: [Talk-ca] Forests/Land Use, was: Canvec reverts I'm "glad" to see someone else w/ this issue. It's glancingly related to the canvec import issue, since the land use polygons are a source of some of the issues the reverter is complaining about (malformed multipolygons / boundary overlaps). In my own work in my old home town of Prince George, I've constantly wanted to just plain delete the "urban area" land use polygon (which doesn't seem to correspond in any way to the actual urban area of the present) and the forest polygons (which have the same problem). Unlike buildings and roads and water, land use is pretty sloppy: where does the "urban area" end? Is this a "forest" or just a bunch of trees? Since anyone making a real multi-scale map will fine some other source of land-use (like classified landsat) and since people trying to map at high-res are finding the forests add little value and much impedance, why don't we ... burn down all the forests (and the urban areas too)? P On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 6:54 AM, Loïc Haméon mailto:hame...@gmail.com>> wrote: On a final note, though, I certainly would approve of any effort to reduce the size of the upload chunks and the assorted polygons. For new mappers like me, those create daunting challenges when trying to make incremental improvements to an area. Shortly after joining the OSM community I was back in my home town of Saint-Félicien, in a fairly remote region that hasn't had tons of local mapping done. Some of the inhabited areas I aimed to improve were covered by Canvec forest multipolygons, and I ended up giving up on them until I could get some more experience as I absolutely did not understand what the hell was going on ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Forests/Land Use, was: Canvec reverts
On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 8:49 AM, Begin Daniel wrote: > What is very cool with OSM is that you can edit the data. Urban polygon is > wrong? Modify it! The definition is obscure in the Wiki? Change it! But > yes, the learning curve is often steep, and you may need to discuss with > someone else… > "Just fix it" is not quite the answer. The point the original poster made, which I concur with, is that the very existence of these shapes makes working with the "important" data difficult. In terms of forest and land use polygons, every vertex I move there is a vertex I'm not going to move on something "important". (And the vertex density of the forests/land use are another reason that working around/with them is painful and energy-sapping.) As discussed in the other thread, the shear volume of Canada means I'm never in 1M years going to "fix" the forests. As it stands, I mostly ignore them. Too many vertexes to move, for too little net benefit, so there's forests running through the new subdivisions of Prince George. At least the roads are there and hopefully correctly named now. (I would, however, love to just delete the urban "land use" polygons, but who know if that's "allowed" or not. Absent a strong personality like the person who caused this thread, it seems like OSM is very much an "add only" project, since the social consequences of incorrectly deleting things seem so high. Nobody wants to be "that guy".) ATB, P > > *From:* Paul Ramsey [mailto:pram...@cleverelephant.ca] > *Sent:* Thursday, 1 September, 2016 11:17 > *To:* Talk-CA OpenStreetMap > *Subject:* [Talk-ca] Forests/Land Use, was: Canvec reverts > > > > I'm "glad" to see someone else w/ this issue. It's glancingly related to > the canvec import issue, since the land use polygons are a source of some > of the issues the reverter is complaining about (malformed multipolygons / > boundary overlaps). > > > > In my own work in my old home town of Prince George, I've constantly > wanted to just plain delete the "urban area" land use polygon (which > doesn't seem to correspond in any way to the actual urban area of the > present) and the forest polygons (which have the same problem). > > > > Unlike buildings and roads and water, land use is pretty sloppy: where > does the "urban area" end? Is this a "forest" or just a bunch of trees? > Since anyone making a real multi-scale map will fine some other source of > land-use (like classified landsat) and since people trying to map at > high-res are finding the forests add little value and much impedance, why > don't we ... burn down all the forests (and the urban areas too)? > > > > P > > > > On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 6:54 AM, Loïc Haméon wrote: > > > On a final note, though, I certainly would approve of any effort to reduce > the size of the upload chunks and the assorted polygons. For new mappers > like me, those create daunting challenges when trying to make incremental > improvements to an area. Shortly after joining the OSM community I was back > in my home town of Saint-Félicien, in a fairly remote region that hasn't > had tons of local mapping done. Some of the inhabited areas I aimed to > improve were covered by Canvec forest multipolygons, and I ended up giving > up on them until I could get some more experience as I absolutely did not > understand what the hell was going on > ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Forests/Land Use, was: Canvec reverts
Regarding the burning of forests, I find the problems with forests tend to occur when the forests meet up with human activities (communities, gravel pits, etc.) If I'm importing in an area with some human settlement (and decent imagery) I will try and clean up the forest and landuse polygons around them. I personally find the forest data both personally useful and ascetically pleasing. If/when new NRCan data is released that provides better forest coverage, I would probably got through a bunch of my old imports and swap out the forest coverage. As for the urban areas I could care less if they get left out. ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Forests/Land Use, was: Canvec reverts
Why don't we ... burn down all the forests (and the urban areas too)? Been in Fort-McMurray lately? (Ok it is a bad joke) Seriously, these discussions about what should be mapped or not, what is valuable content or not are raging since the beginning of OSM. More recently, discussions around the value of hand crafted map compared to imported data are also dividing the community. Those are all ‘normal events’ in a collective work and they will not stop. Best thing to do is sharing your concerns, as you just did. These are seeds that may grow up, or not. What is very cool with OSM is that you can edit the data. Urban polygon is wrong? Modify it! The definition is obscure in the Wiki? Change it! But yes, the learning curve is often steep, and you may need to discuss with someone else… Best regard, Daniel From: Paul Ramsey [mailto:pram...@cleverelephant.ca] Sent: Thursday, 1 September, 2016 11:17 To: Talk-CA OpenStreetMap Subject: [Talk-ca] Forests/Land Use, was: Canvec reverts I'm "glad" to see someone else w/ this issue. It's glancingly related to the canvec import issue, since the land use polygons are a source of some of the issues the reverter is complaining about (malformed multipolygons / boundary overlaps). In my own work in my old home town of Prince George, I've constantly wanted to just plain delete the "urban area" land use polygon (which doesn't seem to correspond in any way to the actual urban area of the present) and the forest polygons (which have the same problem). Unlike buildings and roads and water, land use is pretty sloppy: where does the "urban area" end? Is this a "forest" or just a bunch of trees? Since anyone making a real multi-scale map will fine some other source of land-use (like classified landsat) and since people trying to map at high-res are finding the forests add little value and much impedance, why don't we ... burn down all the forests (and the urban areas too)? P On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 6:54 AM, Loïc Haméon mailto:hame...@gmail.com>> wrote: On a final note, though, I certainly would approve of any effort to reduce the size of the upload chunks and the assorted polygons. For new mappers like me, those create daunting challenges when trying to make incremental improvements to an area. Shortly after joining the OSM community I was back in my home town of Saint-Félicien, in a fairly remote region that hasn't had tons of local mapping done. Some of the inhabited areas I aimed to improve were covered by Canvec forest multipolygons, and I ended up giving up on them until I could get some more experience as I absolutely did not understand what the hell was going on ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Forests/Land Use, was: Canvec reverts
because it is a tangible item in the real world, it should be mapped? OpenStreetMap is not just about roads and navigation, it's an Open GIS representation of the world around us. People may be using that information, even if you are not. While we are at it why not just nuke lakes and rivers as they serve no purpose right? On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 11:17 AM, Paul Ramsey wrote: > I'm "glad" to see someone else w/ this issue. It's glancingly related to > the canvec import issue, since the land use polygons are a source of some > of the issues the reverter is complaining about (malformed multipolygons / > boundary overlaps). > > In my own work in my old home town of Prince George, I've constantly > wanted to just plain delete the "urban area" land use polygon (which > doesn't seem to correspond in any way to the actual urban area of the > present) and the forest polygons (which have the same problem). > > Unlike buildings and roads and water, land use is pretty sloppy: where > does the "urban area" end? Is this a "forest" or just a bunch of trees? > Since anyone making a real multi-scale map will fine some other source of > land-use (like classified landsat) and since people trying to map at > high-res are finding the forests add little value and much impedance, why > don't we ... burn down all the forests (and the urban areas too)? > > P > > On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 6:54 AM, Loïc Haméon wrote: > >> >> On a final note, though, I certainly would approve of any effort to >> reduce the size of the upload chunks and the assorted polygons. For new >> mappers like me, those create daunting challenges when trying to make >> incremental improvements to an area. Shortly after joining the OSM >> community I was back in my home town of Saint-Félicien, in a fairly remote >> region that hasn't had tons of local mapping done. Some of the inhabited >> areas I aimed to improve were covered by Canvec forest multipolygons, and I >> ended up giving up on them until I could get some more experience as I >> absolutely did not understand what the hell was going on >> >> > ___ > 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
[Talk-ca] Forests/Land Use, was: Canvec reverts
I'm "glad" to see someone else w/ this issue. It's glancingly related to the canvec import issue, since the land use polygons are a source of some of the issues the reverter is complaining about (malformed multipolygons / boundary overlaps). In my own work in my old home town of Prince George, I've constantly wanted to just plain delete the "urban area" land use polygon (which doesn't seem to correspond in any way to the actual urban area of the present) and the forest polygons (which have the same problem). Unlike buildings and roads and water, land use is pretty sloppy: where does the "urban area" end? Is this a "forest" or just a bunch of trees? Since anyone making a real multi-scale map will fine some other source of land-use (like classified landsat) and since people trying to map at high-res are finding the forests add little value and much impedance, why don't we ... burn down all the forests (and the urban areas too)? P On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 6:54 AM, Loïc Haméon wrote: > > On a final note, though, I certainly would approve of any effort to reduce > the size of the upload chunks and the assorted polygons. For new mappers > like me, those create daunting challenges when trying to make incremental > improvements to an area. Shortly after joining the OSM community I was back > in my home town of Saint-Félicien, in a fairly remote region that hasn't > had tons of local mapping done. Some of the inhabited areas I aimed to > improve were covered by Canvec forest multipolygons, and I ended up giving > up on them until I could get some more experience as I absolutely did not > understand what the hell was going on > > ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
