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

[john whelan]

Why and by what authority?  We are talking individual imports here by
different people.  At least two members of OSMF were and are aware of them
and nothing has been said before.  Whose rules are we talking here?

Cheerio John

On 1 September 2016 at 15:42, Michael Reichert  wrote:

> Hi John,
>
> Am 2016-09-01 um 14:47 schrieb john whelan:
> > The Canvec data was imported with the knowledge and support of the local
> > mappers and I think that's all that matters.
>
> An import of such a size and has to be discussed and approved on an
> international level.
>
> Best regards
>
> Michael
>
>
> --
> Per E-Mail kommuniziere ich bevorzugt GPG-verschlüsselt. (Mailinglisten
> ausgenommen)
> I prefer GPG encryption of emails. (does not apply on mailing lists)
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>
>
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

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

[Michael Reichert]

Hi John,

Am 2016-09-01 um 14:47 schrieb john whelan:
> The Canvec data was imported with the knowledge and support of the local
> mappers and I think that's all that matters.

An import of such a size and has to be discussed and approved on an
international level.

Best regards

Michael


-- 
Per E-Mail kommuniziere ich bevorzugt GPG-verschlüsselt. (Mailinglisten
ausgenommen)
I prefer GPG encryption of emails. (does not apply on mailing lists)




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

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

[Begin Daniel]

You are right about Canadian government open data; I was referring at the 
Canvec data in OSM format most of us used.
Daniel

-Original Message-
From: Stewart C. Russell [mailto:scr...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, 1 September, 2016 11:53
To: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] broken forests in eastern Canada

On 2016-09-01 09:05 AM, Begin Daniel wrote:
> 
> - Run a better version of the preprocessor on the Canvec raw data and 
> reimport them again? Not possible. Canvec data has been produced and 
> renew between 2010 and 2012 by our national mapping agency (NRCan).
> The product is now static (no updates) but NRCan graciously keeps it 
> available to us...

Canvec - the Government of Canada product - isn't static. It's supplied under 
an OSM-friendly licence. In its current version, it's supplied in a (mostly) 
seamless format. This would avoid the tile issue.
http://open.canada.ca/data/en/dataset/23387971-b6d3-4ded-a40b-c8e832b4ea08

Michael: your metric of upload features per minute is arbitrary and capricious. 
These data are the best that the Canadian OSM community had at the time. Please 
respect that while we work out if/when/how we can do something better. Deleting 
map data for arbitrary reasons is vandalism.

cheers,
 Stewart



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

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

[Stewart C. Russell]

On 2016-09-01 09:05 AM, Begin Daniel wrote:
> 
> - Run a better version of the preprocessor on the Canvec raw data and
> reimport them again? Not possible. Canvec data has been produced and
> renew between 2010 and 2012 by our national mapping agency (NRCan).
> The product is now static (no updates) but NRCan graciously keeps it
> available to us...

Canvec - the Government of Canada product - isn't static. It's supplied
under an OSM-friendly licence. In its current version, it's supplied in
a (mostly) seamless format. This would avoid the tile issue.
http://open.canada.ca/data/en/dataset/23387971-b6d3-4ded-a40b-c8e832b4ea08

Michael: your metric of upload features per minute is arbitrary and
capricious. These data are the best that the Canadian OSM community had
at the time. Please respect that while we work out if/when/how we can do
something better. Deleting map data for arbitrary reasons is vandalism.

cheers,
 Stewart



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

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

[Begin Daniel]

I agree with you that Michael is forcing us to improve the quality of our data. 
However, the way he is doing this also matters. Until we are convinced that he 
will not delete what has been done over the years, this thread should keep 
running. Then we will able to discuss about improving the Canvec import process.

About preferring quality over quantity, I think that in the context of this 
discussion, we are rather talking about having something on the map instead of 
nothing.

Best regards,
Daniel

-Original Message-
From: dega [mailto:gade...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, 1 September, 2016 10:19
To: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
Subject: [Talk-ca] broken forests in eastern Canada

On September 1st, John Whelan wrote:
> I suggest we formally request that he is prevented from making any 
> changes within Canada and his reversals be reverted.
> The Canvec data was imported with the knowledge and support of the 
> local mappers and I think that's all that matters.
I disagree!
Michael's goal is to force us to improve the quality of our data. He's not a 
vandal.

Personnaly, I also prefer quality over quantity.
Why don't we take a pause to discuss how we can improve the quality of the 
CanVec import process?

dega (a local mapper since 2007)

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

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

[john whelan]

His goal might be to improve the data quality and that us something I'm in
favour of but the CANVEC data was imported over a long period of time.
Deleting the imported changesets on basically a whim is not improving data
quality.

Yes some of the data could have been better imported, but Canada is big.
Forests are larger than JOSM can download.

The choice in many areas is no data or CANVEC data and I know what I'd
prefer.  CANVEC comes from a number of sources that were the best available
at the time.  Some sources are good, some not so good.  By deleting
everything then you're left with nothing or heaven forbid highways traced
from poor quality satellite images that were sometimes 100 metres or more
out.  For example in Quebec the sources are quite different to Ontario.
House number ranges I don’t think were available for Quebec for example.

Forests and lakes maybe one problem area in a particular province but
buildings, power lines and highways are fine.

The traditional OSM way is for the data to be refined over time.  The
CANVEC data is verified and enhanced and that is currently what is
happening.

We do have a number of mappers in Canada who have more experience than
Michael, we worked with the Federal Government to get the data released and
although there are some problems with it the vast majority is of good
quality.

Cheerio John

On 1 September 2016 at 10:18, dega  wrote:

> On September 1st, John Whelan wrote:
> > I suggest we formally request that he is prevented from making any
> changes
> > within Canada and his reversals be reverted.
> > The Canvec data was imported with the knowledge and support of the local
> > mappers and I think that's all that matters.
> I disagree!
> Michael's goal is to force us to improve the quality of our data. He's not
> a
> vandal.
>
> Personnaly, I also prefer quality over quantity.
> Why don't we take a pause to discuss how we can improve the quality of the
> CanVec import process?
>
> dega (a local mapper since 2007)
>
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

[Talk-ca] broken forests in eastern Canada

[dega]

On September 1st, John Whelan wrote:
> I suggest we formally request that he is prevented from making any changes
> within Canada and his reversals be reverted.
> The Canvec data was imported with the knowledge and support of the local
> mappers and I think that's all that matters.
I disagree!
Michael's goal is to force us to improve the quality of our data. He's not a 
vandal.

Personnaly, I also prefer quality over quantity.
Why don't we take a pause to discuss how we can improve the quality of the 
CanVec import process?

dega (a local mapper since 2007)

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

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

[Begin Daniel]

Few comments...
- The people how import the data should know how [multipolygon] work (), +1 
- Run a better version of the preprocessor on the Canvec raw data and reimport 
them again? Not possible. Canvec data has been produced and renew between 2010 
and 2012 by our national mapping agency (NRCan). The product is now static (no 
updates) but NRCan graciously keeps it available to us...
- Replacing the grid by less artificial borders, e.g. roads, rivers, 
powerlines... Some of us have started doing this - including myself. However I 
do not consider it as a real problem since the multipolygon have to be split 
somewhere anyway.
- [Imports] should undergo the manual quality checks I described in my other 
emails and the changeset comments. Agreed, but how many errors will you 
tolerate in a changeset before deleting it?

Daniel

-Original Message-
From: Michael Reichert [mailto:naka...@gmx.net] 
Sent: Thursday, 1 September, 2016 08:40
To: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] broken forests in eastern Canada

Hi,

Am 01.09.2016 um 01:21 schrieb dega:
> On Aug 31, Daniel Bégin wrote:
>> On the same topic, it has been suggested to split wooded areas in 
>> smaller chunks by using features on the ground as outer limits 
>> (mostly roads, streams, rivers) and get rid of arbitrary rectangles from 
>> Canvec.
>> Is it something we are aiming at?
> 
> The grid is an important source of problems. Here are some examples:
> 1) If a lake is on the grid, it will be split in 2 parts. Each part 
> will have a name tag and and 2 identical names will be displayed on 
> the map, one on each part. This problem exist in thousands of lakes. I 
> even saw a lake with a triplicated name.
> Merging the parts would require modifying 2 or more relations and many 
> importers don't do it (even if they use JOSM) because of the 
> complexity. Some have used a quick fix where they remove names from 
> the parts and put it in a POI. It looks fine but that's bad for database 
> integrity.

If someone does not merge two lakes because it is too "complex", he should 
evaluate if he is the right person to import such data. If an import contains 
much multipolygon relations, the people how import the data should know how 
they work, what can be done wrong, how to edit and how to fix them. :-/

> 2) A addr:interp way may be split in 2 parts. 2 consequences:
> - the interpolation way become useless because it's now 2 different objects.
> - the mid-point becomes 2 superposed nodes. Useless duplication.
> 
> 3) A grid tile has a fixed size. It may be appropriate for unpopulated 
> areas but it is too large for urban areas where editors work at a high 
> zoom level
> (17 and up). It's easy to damage a relation without knowing it.
> 
> But there are other problems (not related to the grid):
> 4) the relations seem to be designed to be stand-alone. Thus the 
> relation borders don't share a way. They use 2 superposed ways. Useless 
> duplication.
> It's very confusing and we frequently alter the wrong way.
> 
> 5) lakes are represented by 2 superposed identical objects, one for 
> the hole and one for the lake. If the hole happen to be on top, the 
> name will not be displayed. It's an unjustifiable complexity for the casual 
> user.
> I've also seen triplicated contour (one for the lake, on for the inner 
> role and one for the outer role)
> 
> Yes, all these quirks can be fixed manually but it's time-consuming 
> and error- prone.

What about reverting the tiles which have all these issues and seem to be 
uploaded with too few checks beforehand, run a better version of the 
preprocessor on the CanVec raw data and reimport them again? (That causes a 
loss of OSM history but an import changeset is not as much valueable than a 
manual changeset)

> Ideally, the contour of a forest must not split any object and it's 
> not possible with a grid.
> The sole advantage of a grid IMHO is to simplify the CanVec exports.

What about replacing the grid by less artificial borders, e.g. roads, rivers, 
powerlines etc. If an area has too few of theses objects, artifical borders 
could be automatically drawn which are optimized to cut as few objects as 
possible into two parts.

> Some years ago I would have proposed that someone write a guide "How 
> to fix a CanVec import". But now I would rather propose that someone 
> write a "How to pre-process a CanVec export before importing it into OSM".

+1

All ongoing changesets which import CanVec data should either use an improved 
version of the preprocessor or should undergo the manual quality checks I 
described in my other emails and the changeset comments.

Best regards

Michael


--
Per E-Mail kommuniziere ich bevorzugt GPG-verschlüsselt. (Mailinglisten
ausgenommen)
I prefer GPG encryption of emails. (does not apply on mailing lists)


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

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

[James]

I'm not sure if anyone from the DWG will do anything, but I agree he should
be prevented from making changes to Canada. He thinks he knows better than
the local mappers

On Sep 1, 2016 8:49 AM, "john whelan"  wrote:

> It would appear that Michael has no appreciation of how we the local
> community work or of how large Canada is nor does he appear to be able to
> communicate with us and understand our concerns.
>
> I suggest we formally request that he is prevented from making any changes
> within Canada and his reversals be reverted.
>
> The Canvec data was imported with the knowledge and support of the local
> mappers and I think that's all that matters.
>
> Cheerio John
>
> On 1 September 2016 at 08:39, Michael Reichert  wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Am 01.09.2016 um 01:21 schrieb dega:
>> > On Aug 31, Daniel Bégin wrote:
>> >> On the same topic, it has been suggested to split wooded areas in
>> smaller
>> >> chunks by using features on the ground as outer limits (mostly roads,
>> >> streams, rivers) and get rid of arbitrary rectangles from Canvec.
>> >> Is it something we are aiming at?
>> >
>> > The grid is an important source of problems. Here are some examples:
>> > 1) If a lake is on the grid, it will be split in 2 parts. Each part
>> will have
>> > a name tag and and 2 identical names will be displayed on the map, one
>> on each
>> > part. This problem exist in thousands of lakes. I even saw a lake with a
>> > triplicated name.
>> > Merging the parts would require modifying 2 or more relations and many
>> > importers don't do it (even if they use JOSM) because of the
>> complexity. Some
>> > have used a quick fix where they remove names from the parts and put it
>> in a
>> > POI. It looks fine but that's bad for database integrity.
>>
>> If someone does not merge two lakes because it is too "complex", he
>> should evaluate if he is the right person to import such data. If an
>> import contains much multipolygon relations, the people how import the
>> data should know how they work, what can be done wrong, how to edit and
>> how to fix them. :-/
>>
>> > 2) A addr:interp way may be split in 2 parts. 2 consequences:
>> > - the interpolation way become useless because it's now 2 different
>> objects.
>> > - the mid-point becomes 2 superposed nodes. Useless duplication.
>> >
>> > 3) A grid tile has a fixed size. It may be appropriate for unpopulated
>> areas
>> > but it is too large for urban areas where editors work at a high zoom
>> level
>> > (17 and up). It's easy to damage a relation without knowing it.
>> >
>> > But there are other problems (not related to the grid):
>> > 4) the relations seem to be designed to be stand-alone. Thus the
>> relation
>> > borders don't share a way. They use 2 superposed ways. Useless
>> duplication.
>> > It's very confusing and we frequently alter the wrong way.
>> >
>> > 5) lakes are represented by 2 superposed identical objects, one for the
>> hole
>> > and one for the lake. If the hole happen to be on top, the name will
>> not be
>> > displayed. It's an unjustifiable complexity for the casual user.
>> > I've also seen triplicated contour (one for the lake, on for the inner
>> role
>> > and one for the outer role)
>> >
>> > Yes, all these quirks can be fixed manually but it's time-consuming and
>> error-
>> > prone.
>>
>> What about reverting the tiles which have all these issues and seem to
>> be uploaded with too few checks beforehand, run a better version of the
>> preprocessor on the CanVec raw data and reimport them again? (That
>> causes a loss of OSM history but an import changeset is not as much
>> valueable than a manual changeset)
>>
>> > Ideally, the contour of a forest must not split any object and it's not
>> > possible with a grid.
>> > The sole advantage of a grid IMHO is to simplify the CanVec exports.
>>
>> What about replacing the grid by less artificial borders, e.g. roads,
>> rivers, powerlines etc. If an area has too few of theses objects,
>> artifical borders could be automatically drawn which are optimized to
>> cut as few objects as possible into two parts.
>>
>> > Some years ago I would have proposed that someone write a guide "How to
>> fix a
>> > CanVec import". But now I would rather propose that someone write a
>> "How to
>> > pre-process a CanVec export before importing it into OSM".
>>
>> +1
>>
>> All ongoing changesets which import CanVec data should either use an
>> improved version of the preprocessor or should undergo the manual
>> quality checks I described in my other emails and the changeset comments.
>>
>> Best regards
>>
>> Michael
>>
>>
>> --
>> Per E-Mail kommuniziere ich bevorzugt GPG-verschlüsselt. (Mailinglisten
>> ausgenommen)
>> I prefer GPG encryption of emails. (does not apply on mailing lists)
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-ca mailing list
>> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>>
>>
>
> 

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

[john whelan]

It would appear that Michael has no appreciation of how we the local
community work or of how large Canada is nor does he appear to be able to
communicate with us and understand our concerns.

I suggest we formally request that he is prevented from making any changes
within Canada and his reversals be reverted.

The Canvec data was imported with the knowledge and support of the local
mappers and I think that's all that matters.

Cheerio John

On 1 September 2016 at 08:39, Michael Reichert  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Am 01.09.2016 um 01:21 schrieb dega:
> > On Aug 31, Daniel Bégin wrote:
> >> On the same topic, it has been suggested to split wooded areas in
> smaller
> >> chunks by using features on the ground as outer limits (mostly roads,
> >> streams, rivers) and get rid of arbitrary rectangles from Canvec.
> >> Is it something we are aiming at?
> >
> > The grid is an important source of problems. Here are some examples:
> > 1) If a lake is on the grid, it will be split in 2 parts. Each part will
> have
> > a name tag and and 2 identical names will be displayed on the map, one
> on each
> > part. This problem exist in thousands of lakes. I even saw a lake with a
> > triplicated name.
> > Merging the parts would require modifying 2 or more relations and many
> > importers don't do it (even if they use JOSM) because of the complexity.
> Some
> > have used a quick fix where they remove names from the parts and put it
> in a
> > POI. It looks fine but that's bad for database integrity.
>
> If someone does not merge two lakes because it is too "complex", he
> should evaluate if he is the right person to import such data. If an
> import contains much multipolygon relations, the people how import the
> data should know how they work, what can be done wrong, how to edit and
> how to fix them. :-/
>
> > 2) A addr:interp way may be split in 2 parts. 2 consequences:
> > - the interpolation way become useless because it's now 2 different
> objects.
> > - the mid-point becomes 2 superposed nodes. Useless duplication.
> >
> > 3) A grid tile has a fixed size. It may be appropriate for unpopulated
> areas
> > but it is too large for urban areas where editors work at a high zoom
> level
> > (17 and up). It's easy to damage a relation without knowing it.
> >
> > But there are other problems (not related to the grid):
> > 4) the relations seem to be designed to be stand-alone. Thus the relation
> > borders don't share a way. They use 2 superposed ways. Useless
> duplication.
> > It's very confusing and we frequently alter the wrong way.
> >
> > 5) lakes are represented by 2 superposed identical objects, one for the
> hole
> > and one for the lake. If the hole happen to be on top, the name will not
> be
> > displayed. It's an unjustifiable complexity for the casual user.
> > I've also seen triplicated contour (one for the lake, on for the inner
> role
> > and one for the outer role)
> >
> > Yes, all these quirks can be fixed manually but it's time-consuming and
> error-
> > prone.
>
> What about reverting the tiles which have all these issues and seem to
> be uploaded with too few checks beforehand, run a better version of the
> preprocessor on the CanVec raw data and reimport them again? (That
> causes a loss of OSM history but an import changeset is not as much
> valueable than a manual changeset)
>
> > Ideally, the contour of a forest must not split any object and it's not
> > possible with a grid.
> > The sole advantage of a grid IMHO is to simplify the CanVec exports.
>
> What about replacing the grid by less artificial borders, e.g. roads,
> rivers, powerlines etc. If an area has too few of theses objects,
> artifical borders could be automatically drawn which are optimized to
> cut as few objects as possible into two parts.
>
> > Some years ago I would have proposed that someone write a guide "How to
> fix a
> > CanVec import". But now I would rather propose that someone write a "How
> to
> > pre-process a CanVec export before importing it into OSM".
>
> +1
>
> All ongoing changesets which import CanVec data should either use an
> improved version of the preprocessor or should undergo the manual
> quality checks I described in my other emails and the changeset comments.
>
> Best regards
>
> Michael
>
>
> --
> Per E-Mail kommuniziere ich bevorzugt GPG-verschlüsselt. (Mailinglisten
> ausgenommen)
> I prefer GPG encryption of emails. (does not apply on mailing lists)
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>
>
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

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

[Michael Reichert]

Hi,

Am 01.09.2016 um 01:21 schrieb dega:
> On Aug 31, Daniel Bégin wrote:
>> On the same topic, it has been suggested to split wooded areas in smaller 
>> chunks by using features on the ground as outer limits (mostly roads,
>> streams, rivers) and get rid of arbitrary rectangles from Canvec.
>> Is it something we are aiming at?
> 
> The grid is an important source of problems. Here are some examples:
> 1) If a lake is on the grid, it will be split in 2 parts. Each part will have 
> a name tag and and 2 identical names will be displayed on the map, one on 
> each 
> part. This problem exist in thousands of lakes. I even saw a lake with a 
> triplicated name.
> Merging the parts would require modifying 2 or more relations and many 
> importers don't do it (even if they use JOSM) because of the complexity. Some 
> have used a quick fix where they remove names from the parts and put it in a 
> POI. It looks fine but that's bad for database integrity.

If someone does not merge two lakes because it is too "complex", he
should evaluate if he is the right person to import such data. If an
import contains much multipolygon relations, the people how import the
data should know how they work, what can be done wrong, how to edit and
how to fix them. :-/

> 2) A addr:interp way may be split in 2 parts. 2 consequences:
> - the interpolation way become useless because it's now 2 different objects.
> - the mid-point becomes 2 superposed nodes. Useless duplication.
> 
> 3) A grid tile has a fixed size. It may be appropriate for unpopulated areas 
> but it is too large for urban areas where editors work at a high zoom level 
> (17 and up). It's easy to damage a relation without knowing it.
> 
> But there are other problems (not related to the grid):
> 4) the relations seem to be designed to be stand-alone. Thus the relation 
> borders don't share a way. They use 2 superposed ways. Useless duplication. 
> It's very confusing and we frequently alter the wrong way.
> 
> 5) lakes are represented by 2 superposed identical objects, one for the hole 
> and one for the lake. If the hole happen to be on top, the name will not be 
> displayed. It's an unjustifiable complexity for the casual user.
> I've also seen triplicated contour (one for the lake, on for the inner role 
> and one for the outer role)
> 
> Yes, all these quirks can be fixed manually but it's time-consuming and error-
> prone.

What about reverting the tiles which have all these issues and seem to
be uploaded with too few checks beforehand, run a better version of the
preprocessor on the CanVec raw data and reimport them again? (That
causes a loss of OSM history but an import changeset is not as much
valueable than a manual changeset)

> Ideally, the contour of a forest must not split any object and it's not 
> possible with a grid.
> The sole advantage of a grid IMHO is to simplify the CanVec exports.

What about replacing the grid by less artificial borders, e.g. roads,
rivers, powerlines etc. If an area has too few of theses objects,
artifical borders could be automatically drawn which are optimized to
cut as few objects as possible into two parts.

> Some years ago I would have proposed that someone write a guide "How to fix a 
> CanVec import". But now I would rather propose that someone write a "How to 
> pre-process a CanVec export before importing it into OSM".

+1

All ongoing changesets which import CanVec data should either use an
improved version of the preprocessor or should undergo the manual
quality checks I described in my other emails and the changeset comments.

Best regards

Michael


-- 
Per E-Mail kommuniziere ich bevorzugt GPG-verschlüsselt. (Mailinglisten
ausgenommen)
I prefer GPG encryption of emails. (does not apply on mailing lists)




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

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

[Antoine Beaupré]

On 2016-08-29 23:47:28, Gordon Dewis wrote:
>> I believe it would be more important to map out park boundaries than
>> actual forest limits which, quite unfortunately, change in pretty
>> dramatic ways in Québec, due to massive logging that has been happening
>> for decades.
>
> Park boundaries are mostly in already, aren’t they? They are fairly easy 
> features to import compared to forests.

Not in Québec, they are not - a bunch of parks are missing still. Some
of the larger areas (like Parc de la Vérendrye, a 22 000 km² area) are
daunting in and of themselves.

No freely available datasource for those either.

A.

-- 
While the creative works from the 16th century can still be accessed
and used by others, the data in some software programs from the 1990s
is already inaccessible.
 - Lawrence Lessig

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

[Talk-ca] broken forests in eastern Canada

[dega]

On Aug 31, Daniel Bégin wrote:
> On the same topic, it has been suggested to split wooded areas in smaller 
> chunks by using features on the ground as outer limits (mostly roads,
> streams, rivers) and get rid of arbitrary rectangles from Canvec.
> Is it something we are aiming at?

The grid is an important source of problems. Here are some examples:
1) If a lake is on the grid, it will be split in 2 parts. Each part will have 
a name tag and and 2 identical names will be displayed on the map, one on each 
part. This problem exist in thousands of lakes. I even saw a lake with a 
triplicated name.
Merging the parts would require modifying 2 or more relations and many 
importers don't do it (even if they use JOSM) because of the complexity. Some 
have used a quick fix where they remove names from the parts and put it in a 
POI. It looks fine but that's bad for database integrity.

2) A addr:interp way may be split in 2 parts. 2 consequences:
- the interpolation way become useless because it's now 2 different objects.
- the mid-point becomes 2 superposed nodes. Useless duplication.

3) A grid tile has a fixed size. It may be appropriate for unpopulated areas 
but it is too large for urban areas where editors work at a high zoom level 
(17 and up). It's easy to damage a relation without knowing it.

But there are other problems (not related to the grid):
4) the relations seem to be designed to be stand-alone. Thus the relation 
borders don't share a way. They use 2 superposed ways. Useless duplication. 
It's very confusing and we frequently alter the wrong way.

5) lakes are represented by 2 superposed identical objects, one for the hole 
and one for the lake. If the hole happen to be on top, the name will not be 
displayed. It's an unjustifiable complexity for the casual user.
I've also seen triplicated contour (one for the lake, on for the inner role 
and one for the outer role)

Yes, all these quirks can be fixed manually but it's time-consuming and error-
prone.

Ideally, the contour of a forest must not split any object and it's not 
possible with a grid.
The sole advantage of a grid IMHO is to simplify the CanVec exports.

Some years ago I would have proposed that someone write a guide "How to fix a 
CanVec import". But now I would rather propose that someone write a "How to 
pre-process a CanVec export before importing it into OSM".

dega


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

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

[James]

If anyone has anything to add:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Canada#What.27s_with_the_forests_in_Canada.3F

On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 11:53 AM, Sam Dyck <samueld...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Or even a just a section of the Wikiproject Canada page.
>
> On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 10:50 AM, James <james2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> We could add it as a subpage to: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/
>> wiki/WikiProject_Canada seeing as it involves all of Canada and list out
>> why it's this way etc
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 10:40 AM, Begin Daniel <jfd...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> “Whats up with the forests in Canada?” A wiki page is a good idea!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> And while talking about forest in eastern Canada…
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It would be very helpful to have a plugin in JOSM that deals with Canvec
>>> water/wooded area integration in multipolygon.  I am not really a developer
>>> but since the merging operations are repeated over and over again over
>>> large areas... might it be possible to do something?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On the same topic, it has been suggested to split wooded areas in
>>> smaller chunks by using features on the ground as outer limits (mostly
>>> roads, streams, rivers) and get rid of arbitrary rectangles from Canvec. Is
>>> it something we are aiming at?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Daniel
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* john whelan [mailto:jwhelan0...@gmail.com]
>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, 31 August, 2016 07:00
>>> *To:* Sam Dyck
>>> *Cc:* Talk-CA OpenStreetMap
>>> *Subject:* Re: [Talk-ca] broken forests in eastern Canada
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > we need to have a "Whats up with the forests in Canada?" page on the
>>> wiki to explain our situation and how we've tried to deal with it
>>>
>>> Sounds like a plan.
>>>
>>> Cheerio John
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 30 August 2016 at 22:41, Sam Dyck <samueld...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> After reading through the changeset discussion, I discovered that one of
>>> my imports in Northern Manitoba made Worst of OSM. (
>>> http://worstofosm.tumblr.com/post/22180046353/dear-openstre
>>> etmap-isnt-it-strange-how-the). As someone who spends a some time
>>> amount of time in some of relatively unpopulated areas of Canada and makes
>>> an effort to check the quality of Canvec data (which is usually pretty
>>> good), I do agree that it is impossible to do everything to the same level
>>> of quality that we would provide in Toronto or Timmins or even small
>>> prairie towns.
>>>
>>> One of the things that seems to bother Nakaner and the WoO people (if I
>>> may put words in their mouths) is that the boundaries are a bit funky in
>>> Canvec. Forests, lakes and wetlands spill into each other, and they are
>>> often out of alignment with the Bing imagery. In some ways this reflects a
>>> degree of natural ambiguity: if we look at the above Hudson's bay
>>> coastline, their is hourly variation in coastlines, and even the long term
>>> patterns change over time. The Manitoba-Nunavut boundary is more or less
>>> fixed by so we can't correct it, and a glance at satellite imagery shows
>>> that the vegetation tends to be spaced off of the shoreline.
>>>
>>> That being said sometimes there is some weird stuff happening in Canvec
>>> data that is out of sync with what is on the ground. These should be
>>> corrected when detected, but are rare enough that they shouldn't be a
>>> problem. I confess I haven't always been great in following the rules when
>>> doing imports (I think the last few years I've been fully in compliance),
>>> and have sometimes caused problems, people on this list have generally
>>> understanding. Perhaps we need to have a "Whats up with the forests in
>>> Canada?" page on the wiki to explain our situation and how we've tried to
>>> deal with it.
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Talk-ca mailing list
>>> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Talk-ca mailing list
>>> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> 外に遊びに行こう！
>>
>
>


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

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

[Sam Dyck]

Or even a just a section of the Wikiproject Canada page.

On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 10:50 AM, James <james2...@gmail.com> wrote:

> We could add it as a subpage to: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/
> wiki/WikiProject_Canada seeing as it involves all of Canada and list out
> why it's this way etc
>
> On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 10:40 AM, Begin Daniel <jfd...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> “Whats up with the forests in Canada?” A wiki page is a good idea!
>>
>>
>>
>> And while talking about forest in eastern Canada…
>>
>>
>>
>> It would be very helpful to have a plugin in JOSM that deals with Canvec
>> water/wooded area integration in multipolygon.  I am not really a developer
>> but since the merging operations are repeated over and over again over
>> large areas... might it be possible to do something?
>>
>>
>>
>> On the same topic, it has been suggested to split wooded areas in smaller
>> chunks by using features on the ground as outer limits (mostly roads,
>> streams, rivers) and get rid of arbitrary rectangles from Canvec. Is it
>> something we are aiming at?
>>
>>
>>
>> Daniel
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* john whelan [mailto:jwhelan0...@gmail.com]
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, 31 August, 2016 07:00
>> *To:* Sam Dyck
>> *Cc:* Talk-CA OpenStreetMap
>> *Subject:* Re: [Talk-ca] broken forests in eastern Canada
>>
>>
>>
>> > we need to have a "Whats up with the forests in Canada?" page on the
>> wiki to explain our situation and how we've tried to deal with it
>>
>> Sounds like a plan.
>>
>> Cheerio John
>>
>>
>>
>> On 30 August 2016 at 22:41, Sam Dyck <samueld...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> After reading through the changeset discussion, I discovered that one of
>> my imports in Northern Manitoba made Worst of OSM. (
>> http://worstofosm.tumblr.com/post/22180046353/dear-openstre
>> etmap-isnt-it-strange-how-the). As someone who spends a some time amount
>> of time in some of relatively unpopulated areas of Canada and makes an
>> effort to check the quality of Canvec data (which is usually pretty good),
>> I do agree that it is impossible to do everything to the same level of
>> quality that we would provide in Toronto or Timmins or even small prairie
>> towns.
>>
>> One of the things that seems to bother Nakaner and the WoO people (if I
>> may put words in their mouths) is that the boundaries are a bit funky in
>> Canvec. Forests, lakes and wetlands spill into each other, and they are
>> often out of alignment with the Bing imagery. In some ways this reflects a
>> degree of natural ambiguity: if we look at the above Hudson's bay
>> coastline, their is hourly variation in coastlines, and even the long term
>> patterns change over time. The Manitoba-Nunavut boundary is more or less
>> fixed by so we can't correct it, and a glance at satellite imagery shows
>> that the vegetation tends to be spaced off of the shoreline.
>>
>> That being said sometimes there is some weird stuff happening in Canvec
>> data that is out of sync with what is on the ground. These should be
>> corrected when detected, but are rare enough that they shouldn't be a
>> problem. I confess I haven't always been great in following the rules when
>> doing imports (I think the last few years I've been fully in compliance),
>> and have sometimes caused problems, people on this list have generally
>> understanding. Perhaps we need to have a "Whats up with the forests in
>> Canada?" page on the wiki to explain our situation and how we've tried to
>> deal with it.
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-ca mailing list
>> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-ca mailing list
>> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> 外に遊びに行こう！
>
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

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

[James]

We could add it as a subpage to:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Canada seeing as it involves
all of Canada and list out why it's this way etc

On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 10:40 AM, Begin Daniel <jfd...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> “Whats up with the forests in Canada?” A wiki page is a good idea!
>
>
>
> And while talking about forest in eastern Canada…
>
>
>
> It would be very helpful to have a plugin in JOSM that deals with Canvec
> water/wooded area integration in multipolygon.  I am not really a developer
> but since the merging operations are repeated over and over again over
> large areas... might it be possible to do something?
>
>
>
> On the same topic, it has been suggested to split wooded areas in smaller
> chunks by using features on the ground as outer limits (mostly roads,
> streams, rivers) and get rid of arbitrary rectangles from Canvec. Is it
> something we are aiming at?
>
>
>
> Daniel
>
>
>
> *From:* john whelan [mailto:jwhelan0...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, 31 August, 2016 07:00
> *To:* Sam Dyck
> *Cc:* Talk-CA OpenStreetMap
> *Subject:* Re: [Talk-ca] broken forests in eastern Canada
>
>
>
> > we need to have a "Whats up with the forests in Canada?" page on the
> wiki to explain our situation and how we've tried to deal with it
>
> Sounds like a plan.
>
> Cheerio John
>
>
>
> On 30 August 2016 at 22:41, Sam Dyck <samueld...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> After reading through the changeset discussion, I discovered that one of
> my imports in Northern Manitoba made Worst of OSM. (
> http://worstofosm.tumblr.com/post/22180046353/dear-
> openstreetmap-isnt-it-strange-how-the). As someone who spends a some time
> amount of time in some of relatively unpopulated areas of Canada and makes
> an effort to check the quality of Canvec data (which is usually pretty
> good), I do agree that it is impossible to do everything to the same level
> of quality that we would provide in Toronto or Timmins or even small
> prairie towns.
>
> One of the things that seems to bother Nakaner and the WoO people (if I
> may put words in their mouths) is that the boundaries are a bit funky in
> Canvec. Forests, lakes and wetlands spill into each other, and they are
> often out of alignment with the Bing imagery. In some ways this reflects a
> degree of natural ambiguity: if we look at the above Hudson's bay
> coastline, their is hourly variation in coastlines, and even the long term
> patterns change over time. The Manitoba-Nunavut boundary is more or less
> fixed by so we can't correct it, and a glance at satellite imagery shows
> that the vegetation tends to be spaced off of the shoreline.
>
> That being said sometimes there is some weird stuff happening in Canvec
> data that is out of sync with what is on the ground. These should be
> corrected when detected, but are rare enough that they shouldn't be a
> problem. I confess I haven't always been great in following the rules when
> doing imports (I think the last few years I've been fully in compliance),
> and have sometimes caused problems, people on this list have generally
> understanding. Perhaps we need to have a "Whats up with the forests in
> Canada?" page on the wiki to explain our situation and how we've tried to
> deal with it.
>
>
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>
>


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

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

[Begin Daniel]

“Whats up with the forests in Canada?” A wiki page is a good idea!

And while talking about forest in eastern Canada…

It would be very helpful to have a plugin in JOSM that deals with Canvec 
water/wooded area integration in multipolygon.  I am not really a developer but 
since the merging operations are repeated over and over again over large 
areas... might it be possible to do something?

On the same topic, it has been suggested to split wooded areas in smaller 
chunks by using features on the ground as outer limits (mostly roads, streams, 
rivers) and get rid of arbitrary rectangles from Canvec. Is it something we are 
aiming at?

Daniel

From: john whelan [mailto:jwhelan0...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, 31 August, 2016 07:00
To: Sam Dyck
Cc: Talk-CA OpenStreetMap
Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] broken forests in eastern Canada

> we need to have a "Whats up with the forests in Canada?" page on the wiki to 
> explain our situation and how we've tried to deal with it
Sounds like a plan.
Cheerio John

On 30 August 2016 at 22:41, Sam Dyck 
<samueld...@gmail.com<mailto:samueld...@gmail.com>> wrote:
After reading through the changeset discussion, I discovered that one of my 
imports in Northern Manitoba made Worst of OSM. 
(http://worstofosm.tumblr.com/post/22180046353/dear-openstreetmap-isnt-it-strange-how-the).
 As someone who spends a some time amount of time in some of relatively 
unpopulated areas of Canada and makes an effort to check the quality of Canvec 
data (which is usually pretty good), I do agree that it is impossible to do 
everything to the same level of quality that we would provide in Toronto or 
Timmins or even small prairie towns.

One of the things that seems to bother Nakaner and the WoO people (if I may put 
words in their mouths) is that the boundaries are a bit funky in Canvec. 
Forests, lakes and wetlands spill into each other, and they are often out of 
alignment with the Bing imagery. In some ways this reflects a degree of natural 
ambiguity: if we look at the above Hudson's bay coastline, their is hourly 
variation in coastlines, and even the long term patterns change over time. The 
Manitoba-Nunavut boundary is more or less fixed by so we can't correct it, and 
a glance at satellite imagery shows that the vegetation tends to be spaced off 
of the shoreline.
That being said sometimes there is some weird stuff happening in Canvec data 
that is out of sync with what is on the ground. These should be corrected when 
detected, but are rare enough that they shouldn't be a problem. I confess I 
haven't always been great in following the rules when doing imports (I think 
the last few years I've been fully in compliance), and have sometimes caused 
problems, people on this list have generally understanding. Perhaps we need to 
have a "Whats up with the forests in Canada?" page on the wiki to explain our 
situation and how we've tried to deal with it.

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

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

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

[john whelan]

> we need to have a "Whats up with the forests in Canada?" page on the wiki
to explain our situation and how we've tried to deal with it

Sounds like a plan.

Cheerio John

On 30 August 2016 at 22:41, Sam Dyck  wrote:

> After reading through the changeset discussion, I discovered that one of
> my imports in Northern Manitoba made Worst of OSM. (
> http://worstofosm.tumblr.com/post/22180046353/dear-
> openstreetmap-isnt-it-strange-how-the). As someone who spends a some time
> amount of time in some of relatively unpopulated areas of Canada and makes
> an effort to check the quality of Canvec data (which is usually pretty
> good), I do agree that it is impossible to do everything to the same level
> of quality that we would provide in Toronto or Timmins or even small
> prairie towns.
>
> One of the things that seems to bother Nakaner and the WoO people (if I
> may put words in their mouths) is that the boundaries are a bit funky in
> Canvec. Forests, lakes and wetlands spill into each other, and they are
> often out of alignment with the Bing imagery. In some ways this reflects a
> degree of natural ambiguity: if we look at the above Hudson's bay
> coastline, their is hourly variation in coastlines, and even the long term
> patterns change over time. The Manitoba-Nunavut boundary is more or less
> fixed by so we can't correct it, and a glance at satellite imagery shows
> that the vegetation tends to be spaced off of the shoreline.
>
> That being said sometimes there is some weird stuff happening in Canvec
> data that is out of sync with what is on the ground. These should be
> corrected when detected, but are rare enough that they shouldn't be a
> problem. I confess I haven't always been great in following the rules when
> doing imports (I think the last few years I've been fully in compliance),
> and have sometimes caused problems, people on this list have generally
> understanding. Perhaps we need to have a "Whats up with the forests in
> Canada?" page on the wiki to explain our situation and how we've tried to
> deal with it.
>
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>
>
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

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

[Sam Dyck]

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

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

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

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

[Stewart C. Russell]

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

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

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

cheers,
 Stewart

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

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

[Begin Daniel]

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

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

Daniel



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


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

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

On Aug 30, 2016 8:55 PM, "Begin Daniel" 
<jfd...@hotmail.com<mailto:jfd...@hotmail.com>> wrote:
No sarcasm at all, why?
Sorry you got that impression ☹

Daniel

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Good day, Nakaner


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

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

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

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

Our list is talk-ca@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-ca@openstreetmap.org>

Thanks,

Adam



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


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

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

[James]

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

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

On Aug 30, 2016 8:55 PM, "Begin Daniel" <jfd...@hotmail.com> wrote:

No sarcasm at all, why?

Sorry you got that impression L



Daniel



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

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



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



On Aug 30, 2016 8:43 PM, "Begin Daniel" <jfd...@hotmail.com> wrote:

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

That is cool!

Daniel



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


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



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



Good day, Nakaner



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

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

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

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

Our list is talk-ca@openstreetmap.org

Thanks,

Adam






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

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

[Begin Daniel]

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

Daniel

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


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

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

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

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

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

Good day, Nakaner


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

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

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

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

Our list is talk-ca@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-ca@openstreetmap.org>

Thanks,

Adam



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

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

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

[James]

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

On Aug 30, 2016 8:43 PM, "Begin Daniel" <jfd...@hotmail.com> wrote:

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

That is cool!

Daniel



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

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



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



Good day, Nakaner



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

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

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

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

Our list is talk-ca@openstreetmap.org

Thanks,

Adam





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

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

[Begin Daniel]

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

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

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

Good day, Nakaner


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

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

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

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

Our list is talk-ca@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-ca@openstreetmap.org>

Thanks,

Adam


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

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

[Adam Martin]

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

Good day, Nakaner

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

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

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

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

Our list is talk-ca@openstreetmap.org

Thanks,

Adam

On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 8:09 PM, john whelan <jwhelan0...@gmail.com> wrote:

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

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

[john whelan]

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

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

John

On 30 August 2016 at 18:28, James <james2...@gmail.com> wrote:

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

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

[James]

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

On Aug 30, 2016 6:05 PM, "Pierre Béland" <pierz...@yahoo.fr> wrote:

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

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

[Pierre Béland]

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


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


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

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

[Begin Daniel]

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

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

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

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

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

Daniel

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

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

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

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

John

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

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

[James]

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

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

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


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

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

[Adam Martin]

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

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

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

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

[John Marshall]

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

John

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

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

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

[James]

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

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

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


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

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

[Pierre Béland]

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

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

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


  De : Begin Daniel <jfd...@hotmail.com>
 À : James <james2...@gmail.com>; Gordon Dewis <gor...@pinetree.org> 
Cc : Antoine Beaupré <anar...@orangeseeds.org>; Talk-CA OpenStreetMap 
<talk-ca@openstreetmap.org>
 Envoyé le : mardi 30 août 2016 6h30
 Objet : Re: [Talk-ca] broken forests in eastern Canada
   
#yiv4747885180 #yiv4747885180 -- _filtered #yiv4747885180 
{font-family:Helvetica;panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;} _filtered #yiv4747885180 
{font-family:Helvetica;panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;} _filtered #yiv4747885180 
{font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv4747885180 
{font-family:Tahoma;panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}#yiv4747885180 
#yiv4747885180 p.yiv4747885180MsoNormal, #yiv4747885180 
li.yiv4747885180MsoNormal, #yiv4747885180 div.yiv4747885180MsoNormal 
{margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv4747885180 a:link, 
#yiv4747885180 span.yiv4747885180MsoHyperlink 
{color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv4747885180 a:visited, #yiv4747885180 
span.yiv4747885180MsoHyperlinkFollowed 
{color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv4747885180 p 
{margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv4747885180 
span.yiv4747885180EmailStyle18 {color:#1F497D;}#yiv4747885180 
.yiv4747885180MsoChpDefault {} _filtered #yiv4747885180 {margin:1.0in 1.0in 
1.0in 1.0in;}#yiv4747885180 div.yiv4747885180WordSection1 {}#yiv4747885180 I 
agree with James, until we have mapped all trees as nodes (!-) removing current 
forest is not a good idea. OSM works that way… you have some free time, you 
add/correct the data you can. Without doing this, the map would simply be empty 
(and we couldn’t see the white rectangles we are talking about!)    Daniel

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

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

[Andrew]

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

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

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

[Stewart C. Russell]

On 2016-08-25 02:26 PM, Alan Richards wrote:
> Generally some of the polygons can be later merged across the boundaries
> into less square shapes, but it can be complicated and slow work.

I don't think it helps that we have users like fx99 consolidating huge
areas into large ways and massively complicated relations, like in this
changeset in Eastern Ontario:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/41719048?way_page=1

cheers,
 Stewart


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

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

[Alan Richards]

Generally some of the polygons can be later merged across the boundaries
into less square shapes, but it can be complicated and slow work.

Personally, I'm still unclear on whether CanVec importing is still going
on? Is the data still available and updated? Most of what I can find on the
wiki is old and out of date and no one seems to be doing any visible work
there.

On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 11:07 AM, Gordon Dewis  wrote:

> Forest footprints change over time but not that much in most places. The
> problem is that forest polygons can quickly end up with thousands of points
> and have the added complexity of holes.
>
> There is value to having them in OSM, we just have to find a better way to
> do them, or live with "seams" at the edges of Canvec tiles.
>
>
> On Aug 25, 2016, 13:09 -0400, Stewart C. Russell ,
> wrote:
>
> On 2016-08-25 04:53 AM, Adam Martin wrote:
>
>
> … The polygons will need to be either merged
> or redrawn to conform with the underlying land use.
>
>
> Or, dare I suggest, deleted completely. If they take a huge amount of
> work to fix and they add little value by being based on elderly data, I
> question their need to be in OSM.
>
> I know it's considered politically inexpedient to have huge blank areas
> in your country's map: it gives ambitious neighbours expansionist ideas.
> You can't find anything interesting in these polygons, and they don't
> help you to find anything, either. Maybe we should just have the legend
> “hic sunt sciuri”* every few square kilometres instead?
>
> cheers,
> Stewart
>
> *: “here be squirrels”
>
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>
>
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>
>
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

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

[Gordon Dewis]

Forest footprints change over time but not that much in most places. The 
problem is that forest polygons can quickly end up with thousands of points and 
have the added complexity of holes.

There is value to having them in OSM, we just have to find a better way to do 
them, or live with "seams" at the edges of Canvec tiles.

On Aug 25, 2016, 13:09 -0400, Stewart C. Russell , wrote:
> On 2016-08-25 04:53 AM, Adam Martin wrote:
> >
> > … The polygons will need to be either merged
> > or redrawn to conform with the underlying land use.
>
> Or, dare I suggest, deleted completely. If they take a huge amount of
> work to fix and they add little value by being based on elderly data, I
> question their need to be in OSM.
>
> I know it's considered politically inexpedient to have huge blank areas
> in your country's map: it gives ambitious neighbours expansionist ideas.
> You can't find anything interesting in these polygons, and they don't
> help you to find anything, either. Maybe we should just have the legend
> “hic sunt sciuri”* every few square kilometres instead?
>
> cheers,
> Stewart
>
> *: “here be squirrels”
>
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

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

[Stewart C. Russell]

On 2016-08-25 04:53 AM, Adam Martin wrote:
>
> … The polygons will need to be either merged
> or redrawn to conform with the underlying land use.

Or, dare I suggest, deleted completely. If they take a huge amount of
work to fix and they add little value by being based on elderly data, I
question their need to be in OSM.

I know it's considered politically inexpedient to have huge blank areas
in your country's map: it gives ambitious neighbours expansionist ideas.
You can't find anything interesting in these polygons, and they don't
help you to find anything, either. Maybe we should just have the legend
“hic sunt sciuri”* every few square kilometres instead?

cheers,
 Stewart

*: “here be squirrels”

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

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

[James]

Yeah forests are not an easy task to handle, I've been trying to tackle
this from time to time in rural areas as to no put a forest in the city,
but it's a long process as you need to validate a lot of things before you
can upload a small portion of land.

I've tackled a few today:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/41689490
http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/41689128
http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/41688785

On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 10:13 AM, Gordon Dewis  wrote:

> Alan is right. I've brought in a few tiles worth of forests from Canvec in
> the area you're talking about, but they were non-trivial to deal with
> compared to most other features. I kept running into limits in the tools I
> was using at the time and I haven't returned to them since.
>
>   --Gordon (Keeper of Maps)
>
> On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 1:19 AM, Alan Richards 
> wrote:
>
>> I believe these are the result of importing Canvec landuse data for some
>> areas and not for others. Because the data is in square chunks, you end up
>> with these unnatural looking squares on the map. Really it's just a case of
>> the other areas don't have detail yet.
>>
>> Across the border it looks like the US just has parks and national
>> forests, etc. mapped, and not the general natural=forest that you see
>> across Canada.
>>
>> Alan (alarobric)
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 2:04 PM, Antoine Beaupré > > wrote:
>>
>>> hi everyone (allo tout le monde!!)
>>>
>>> one of the most frustrating experiences I have with Openstreetmap in
>>> Canada is this ugly forest display:
>>>
>>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=8/45.227/-73.916
>>>
>>> Just compare how the forests and parks are mapped between the US and
>>> Canada. On our side of the border, you got huge chunks of square forests
>>> that definitely do not reflect the current reality, whereas down south
>>> you clearly see national parks, forests and no weird square things.
>>>
>>> I don't really understand how this happened, but it's been there a long
>>> time. I feel it's some Canvec import that went wrong, but it's been
>>> there for so long that it seems people just forgot about it or moved on.
>>>
>>> I looked around in the .qc and .ca wiki pages and couldn't find anything
>>> about it, so I figured I would bring that up here (again?).
>>>
>>> Are there any plans to fix this? How would one go around fixing this
>>> anyways?
>>>
>>> In particular, I'm curious to hear if people would know how to import
>>> *all* the park limits in Québec. It seems those are better mapped in
>>> Ontario, and I can't imagine those wore drawn by hand..
>>>
>>> Thanks for any feedback (and please CC me, I'm not on the list).
>>>
>>> A.
>>>
>>> --
>>> We will create a civilization of the Mind in Cyberspace. May it be more
>>> humane and fair than the world your governments have made before.
>>> - John Perry Barlow, 1996
>>> A Declaration of Independence of Cyberspace
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Talk-ca mailing list
>>> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-ca mailing list
>> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>>
>>
>
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>
>


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

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

[Gordon Dewis]

Alan is right. I've brought in a few tiles worth of forests from Canvec in
the area you're talking about, but they were non-trivial to deal with
compared to most other features. I kept running into limits in the tools I
was using at the time and I haven't returned to them since.

  --Gordon (Keeper of Maps)

On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 1:19 AM, Alan Richards  wrote:

> I believe these are the result of importing Canvec landuse data for some
> areas and not for others. Because the data is in square chunks, you end up
> with these unnatural looking squares on the map. Really it's just a case of
> the other areas don't have detail yet.
>
> Across the border it looks like the US just has parks and national
> forests, etc. mapped, and not the general natural=forest that you see
> across Canada.
>
> Alan (alarobric)
>
> On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 2:04 PM, Antoine Beaupré 
> wrote:
>
>> hi everyone (allo tout le monde!!)
>>
>> one of the most frustrating experiences I have with Openstreetmap in
>> Canada is this ugly forest display:
>>
>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=8/45.227/-73.916
>>
>> Just compare how the forests and parks are mapped between the US and
>> Canada. On our side of the border, you got huge chunks of square forests
>> that definitely do not reflect the current reality, whereas down south
>> you clearly see national parks, forests and no weird square things.
>>
>> I don't really understand how this happened, but it's been there a long
>> time. I feel it's some Canvec import that went wrong, but it's been
>> there for so long that it seems people just forgot about it or moved on.
>>
>> I looked around in the .qc and .ca wiki pages and couldn't find anything
>> about it, so I figured I would bring that up here (again?).
>>
>> Are there any plans to fix this? How would one go around fixing this
>> anyways?
>>
>> In particular, I'm curious to hear if people would know how to import
>> *all* the park limits in Québec. It seems those are better mapped in
>> Ontario, and I can't imagine those wore drawn by hand..
>>
>> Thanks for any feedback (and please CC me, I'm not on the list).
>>
>> A.
>>
>> --
>> We will create a civilization of the Mind in Cyberspace. May it be more
>> humane and fair than the world your governments have made before.
>> - John Perry Barlow, 1996
>> A Declaration of Independence of Cyberspace
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-ca mailing list
>> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>
>
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

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

[Begin Daniel]

Bon points Jean-Denis,
Les descriptions techniques aident souvent. Dans les cas où j’ai utilisé cette 
source de données, elle référait souvent aux lotissements mais la carte des 
lotissements (matrice graphique) ne peut être utilisée dans OSM (licences).
L’autorisation expresse du/des Ministère(s) concerné(s) serait parfaite! On 
peut toujours espérer …

Bonne chance Antoine
Daniel

From: Jean-Denis Giguere [mailto:jdenisgigu...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, 25 August, 2016 08:18
To: Antoine Beaupré
Cc: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] broken forests in eastern Canada

Bonjour Antoine,

Pour la limite des parcs, les descriptions techniques des délimitations font 
partie des règlements sur l’établissement des parcs nationaux [1]. Il y a là 
des repères susceptibles d'aider à leur cartographie.
Une autre alternative consisterait à transmettre une demande au Ministère des 
Forêts, de la Faune et des Parcs pour obtenir les données géospatiales de leur 
délimitation avec l'autorisation expresse d'intégrer les données dans 
OpenStreetMap.


Salutations cordiales,


Jean-Denis


[1] Voir par exemple, http://legisquebec.gouv.qc.ca/fr/ShowDoc/cr/P-9,%20r.%201

2016-08-16 17:04 GMT-04:00 Antoine Beaupré 
<anar...@orangeseeds.org<mailto:anar...@orangeseeds.org>>:
hi everyone (allo tout le monde!!)

one of the most frustrating experiences I have with Openstreetmap in
Canada is this ugly forest display:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=8/45.227/-73.916

Just compare how the forests and parks are mapped between the US and
Canada. On our side of the border, you got huge chunks of square forests
that definitely do not reflect the current reality, whereas down south
you clearly see national parks, forests and no weird square things.

I don't really understand how this happened, but it's been there a long
time. I feel it's some Canvec import that went wrong, but it's been
there for so long that it seems people just forgot about it or moved on.

I looked around in the .qc and .ca wiki pages and couldn't find anything
about it, so I figured I would bring that up here (again?).

Are there any plans to fix this? How would one go around fixing this
anyways?

In particular, I'm curious to hear if people would know how to import
*all* the park limits in Québec. It seems those are better mapped in
Ontario, and I can't imagine those wore drawn by hand..

Thanks for any feedback (and please CC me, I'm not on the list).

A.

--
We will create a civilization of the Mind in Cyberspace. May it be more
humane and fair than the world your governments have made before.
- John Perry Barlow, 1996
A Declaration of Independence of Cyberspace

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

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

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

[Jean-Denis Giguere]

Bonjour Antoine,

Pour la limite des parcs, les descriptions techniques des délimitations
font partie des règlements sur l’établissement des parcs nationaux [1]. Il
y a là des repères susceptibles d'aider à leur cartographie.
Une autre alternative consisterait à transmettre une demande au Ministère
des Forêts, de la Faune et des Parcs pour obtenir les données géospatiales
de leur délimitation avec l'autorisation expresse d'intégrer les données
dans OpenStreetMap.


Salutations cordiales,


Jean-Denis


[1] Voir par exemple,
http://legisquebec.gouv.qc.ca/fr/ShowDoc/cr/P-9,%20r.%201

2016-08-16 17:04 GMT-04:00 Antoine Beaupré :

> hi everyone (allo tout le monde!!)
>
> one of the most frustrating experiences I have with Openstreetmap in
> Canada is this ugly forest display:
>
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=8/45.227/-73.916
>
> Just compare how the forests and parks are mapped between the US and
> Canada. On our side of the border, you got huge chunks of square forests
> that definitely do not reflect the current reality, whereas down south
> you clearly see national parks, forests and no weird square things.
>
> I don't really understand how this happened, but it's been there a long
> time. I feel it's some Canvec import that went wrong, but it's been
> there for so long that it seems people just forgot about it or moved on.
>
> I looked around in the .qc and .ca wiki pages and couldn't find anything
> about it, so I figured I would bring that up here (again?).
>
> Are there any plans to fix this? How would one go around fixing this
> anyways?
>
> In particular, I'm curious to hear if people would know how to import
> *all* the park limits in Québec. It seems those are better mapped in
> Ontario, and I can't imagine those wore drawn by hand..
>
> Thanks for any feedback (and please CC me, I'm not on the list).
>
> A.
>
> --
> We will create a civilization of the Mind in Cyberspace. May it be more
> humane and fair than the world your governments have made before.
> - John Perry Barlow, 1996
> A Declaration of Independence of Cyberspace
>
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

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

[Begin Daniel]

Bonjour Antoine,

Pour ajouter aux commentaires d'Alan et d'Adam.

Pour ce qui est de la forêt...
Comparer la forêt US/Canada est un peu injuste.  En général, la forêt n'est pas 
cartographiée du côté US, et elle a été partiellement importée du côté canadien 
- d'où les vides de forme rectangulaire...
Corriger toute la forêt du côté canadien voudrait dire importer ce qui manque 
via Canvec et ce serait possiblement problématique...
Corriger localement de façon manuel est possible. J'ai déjà corrigé plusieurs 
centaines de Km2 de 'trous' au nord et à l'est de Sainte-Agathe-des-Monts. Les 
trous qui apparaissent encore dans cette zone ont été causés  par la suite par 
des éditeurs qui ne sont pas familiers avec les multipolygon.

Pour ce qui est des parcs nationaux du Québec...
Je ne connais pas de sources de données qui permettent l'import légal des 
limites de parc au Québec. 
J'ai ajouté quelques limites de parc dans OSM (Yamaska, Frontenac. Mégantic et 
Bic). Je connaissais bien ces endroits et je me suis servi  de documents 
touristiques pour guider ma photo-interprétation - on ne doit pas copier les 
cartes. Une fois qu'on a compris le territoire, la démarcation visuelle entre 
les terres protégées/non protégées sur les images est généralement asses 
simple, mais j'ajoute quand même une note pour signifier que les  limites sont 
approximatives. 

Daniel


-Original Message-
From: Antoine Beaupré [mailto:anar...@orangeseeds.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, 16 August, 2016 17:05
To: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
Subject: [Talk-ca] broken forests in eastern Canada

hi everyone (allo tout le monde!!)

one of the most frustrating experiences I have with Openstreetmap in Canada is 
this ugly forest display:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=8/45.227/-73.916

Just compare how the forests and parks are mapped between the US and Canada. On 
our side of the border, you got huge chunks of square forests that definitely 
do not reflect the current reality, whereas down south you clearly see national 
parks, forests and no weird square things.

I don't really understand how this happened, but it's been there a long time. I 
feel it's some Canvec import that went wrong, but it's been there for so long 
that it seems people just forgot about it or moved on.

I looked around in the .qc and .ca wiki pages and couldn't find anything about 
it, so I figured I would bring that up here (again?).

Are there any plans to fix this? How would one go around fixing this anyways?

In particular, I'm curious to hear if people would know how to import
*all* the park limits in Québec. It seems those are better mapped in Ontario, 
and I can't imagine those wore drawn by hand..

Thanks for any feedback (and please CC me, I'm not on the list).

A.

--
We will create a civilization of the Mind in Cyberspace. May it be more humane 
and fair than the world your governments have made before.
- John Perry Barlow, 1996
A Declaration of Independence of Cyberspace

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

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

[Adam Martin]

Both of your instincts on the matter are correct - these polygons are the
result of CANVEC data imports and has to do with how that data is packaged
for distribution by Natural Resources. If you go to the CANVEC site, click
on the map, and zoom to an address, you eventually get to the level where
the data is divided into discreet blocks. This is partially to manage the
size of the shape files that make up this data (they can be quite large).

This isn't an issue for items like roads or features that fit within one of
these areas. But if a feature crosses a boundary, then it is split by the
shape files. These forest polygons are divided exactly along these shape
dividers.

These polygons do not have a high level of percision, but I don't believe
they were ever really meant to. There is only so much detail that the
CANVEC files can have. These shape are also, in some cases, quite old. Some
surveys by Natural Resources are more that thirty years old with no need to
really update them.

As to why they haven't been fixed? It's not that we've ignored these blocks
or their accuracy. Rather, it's more a matter of priority. Most mappers are
busy with major settlements and other human inhabited areas. Most of these
blocks are in areas with little human activity. As making efforts progress,
these blocks will probably get addressed, but as you can imagine, it's a
big task. The polygons will need to be either merged or redrawn to conform
with the underlying land use.

Adam

On Aug 25, 2016 2:50 AM, "Alan Richards"  wrote:

> I believe these are the result of importing Canvec landuse data for some
> areas and not for others. Because the data is in square chunks, you end up
> with these unnatural looking squares on the map. Really it's just a case of
> the other areas don't have detail yet.
>
> Across the border it looks like the US just has parks and national
> forests, etc. mapped, and not the general natural=forest that you see
> across Canada.
>
> Alan (alarobric)
>
> On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 2:04 PM, Antoine Beaupré 
> wrote:
>
>> hi everyone (allo tout le monde!!)
>>
>> one of the most frustrating experiences I have with Openstreetmap in
>> Canada is this ugly forest display:
>>
>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=8/45.227/-73.916
>>
>> Just compare how the forests and parks are mapped between the US and
>> Canada. On our side of the border, you got huge chunks of square forests
>> that definitely do not reflect the current reality, whereas down south
>> you clearly see national parks, forests and no weird square things.
>>
>> I don't really understand how this happened, but it's been there a long
>> time. I feel it's some Canvec import that went wrong, but it's been
>> there for so long that it seems people just forgot about it or moved on.
>>
>> I looked around in the .qc and .ca wiki pages and couldn't find anything
>> about it, so I figured I would bring that up here (again?).
>>
>> Are there any plans to fix this? How would one go around fixing this
>> anyways?
>>
>> In particular, I'm curious to hear if people would know how to import
>> *all* the park limits in Québec. It seems those are better mapped in
>> Ontario, and I can't imagine those wore drawn by hand..
>>
>> Thanks for any feedback (and please CC me, I'm not on the list).
>>
>> A.
>>
>> --
>> We will create a civilization of the Mind in Cyberspace. May it be more
>> humane and fair than the world your governments have made before.
>> - John Perry Barlow, 1996
>> A Declaration of Independence of Cyberspace
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-ca mailing list
>> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>
>
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

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

[Alan Richards]

I believe these are the result of importing Canvec landuse data for some
areas and not for others. Because the data is in square chunks, you end up
with these unnatural looking squares on the map. Really it's just a case of
the other areas don't have detail yet.

Across the border it looks like the US just has parks and national forests,
etc. mapped, and not the general natural=forest that you see across Canada.

Alan (alarobric)

On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 2:04 PM, Antoine Beaupré 
wrote:

> hi everyone (allo tout le monde!!)
>
> one of the most frustrating experiences I have with Openstreetmap in
> Canada is this ugly forest display:
>
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=8/45.227/-73.916
>
> Just compare how the forests and parks are mapped between the US and
> Canada. On our side of the border, you got huge chunks of square forests
> that definitely do not reflect the current reality, whereas down south
> you clearly see national parks, forests and no weird square things.
>
> I don't really understand how this happened, but it's been there a long
> time. I feel it's some Canvec import that went wrong, but it's been
> there for so long that it seems people just forgot about it or moved on.
>
> I looked around in the .qc and .ca wiki pages and couldn't find anything
> about it, so I figured I would bring that up here (again?).
>
> Are there any plans to fix this? How would one go around fixing this
> anyways?
>
> In particular, I'm curious to hear if people would know how to import
> *all* the park limits in Québec. It seems those are better mapped in
> Ontario, and I can't imagine those wore drawn by hand..
>
> Thanks for any feedback (and please CC me, I'm not on the list).
>
> A.
>
> --
> We will create a civilization of the Mind in Cyberspace. May it be more
> humane and fair than the world your governments have made before.
> - John Perry Barlow, 1996
> A Declaration of Independence of Cyberspace
>
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

[Talk-ca] broken forests in eastern Canada

[Antoine Beaupré]

hi everyone (allo tout le monde!!)

one of the most frustrating experiences I have with Openstreetmap in
Canada is this ugly forest display:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=8/45.227/-73.916

Just compare how the forests and parks are mapped between the US and
Canada. On our side of the border, you got huge chunks of square forests
that definitely do not reflect the current reality, whereas down south
you clearly see national parks, forests and no weird square things.

I don't really understand how this happened, but it's been there a long
time. I feel it's some Canvec import that went wrong, but it's been
there for so long that it seems people just forgot about it or moved on.

I looked around in the .qc and .ca wiki pages and couldn't find anything
about it, so I figured I would bring that up here (again?).

Are there any plans to fix this? How would one go around fixing this
anyways?

In particular, I'm curious to hear if people would know how to import
*all* the park limits in Québec. It seems those are better mapped in
Ontario, and I can't imagine those wore drawn by hand..

Thanks for any feedback (and please CC me, I'm not on the list).

A.

-- 
We will create a civilization of the Mind in Cyberspace. May it be more
humane and fair than the world your governments have made before.
- John Perry Barlow, 1996
A Declaration of Independence of Cyberspace

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